Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [ Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 July.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL ( By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 1 July.

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] ( By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Volunteering

Miss Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about initiatives to promote volunteering.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The Home Office funds a number of organisations which promote voluntary activity. For example, at the beginning of this month, with support from the Home Office and the BBC, the Volunteer Centre UK organised a highly successful volunteers week, on which I congratulate it. More than 12,000 inquiries were made by prospective volunteers on the telephone helplines alone.

Miss Nicholson: I thank the Minister for his full response. Can he tell me whether the Prime Minister's Christmas message mentioned the importance of volunteering as central to our society? Does my hon. Friend see the number of volunteers swelling and the ways in which they assist in the community growing, as I do? Does he agree that it is a wonderful initiative whereby hundreds of thousands of people give freely of time, energy and professionalism and the Home Office supports their work?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister spoke about the importance that he places on

volunteering. About half the population volunteer for charitable work at some time in their lives. We want to increase the number of volunteers, the regularity with which they do charitable work and their effectiveness.

Mr. Michael: I am tempted to wish the Minister a happy Christmas after that question. I welcome him to his new responsibility for bringing together charities and voluntary organisations and express pleasure that the Government are catching up with the Labour party in that regard. Does he agree that volunteering should not be regarded as a cheap way of getting a job done and that we need to respect the professionalism of volunteers as well as their commitment? Will he give an undertaking to expand the way in which the Government provide training and resources for the support of volunteers? Does he accept that there is a danger that the contract culture may lead to a top-down approach in which the Government may seek to constrain too tightly the work of voluntary organisations?

Mr. Lloyd: I believe that contracting will probably mean an increase in the use of voluntary organisations. Professionalism is extremely important. It is not a cheap way of providing service, although it is the most cost-effective way of doing so. The great advantage is that it harnesses the enthusiasm of people who want to do that work and provides a flexibility that publicly funded and directed organisations cannot, with the best will in the world, supply.

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Prime Minister has shown considerable interest in making it possible for a large number of young people to give one year of their time to voluntary service if they so choose? Does he agree that, by so doing, they will enhance their self-respect as well as learn that they grow by giving? Will he do everything in his power to encourage that initiative?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important aspect of volunteering, where it is of benefit to the volunteer, especially those special groups of people whose self-respect needs developing. I refer particularly to former young offenders. Because of my Prison Service responsibilities and my responsibility for voluntary organisations, I take particular interest in organisations such as the Community Service Volunteers, to which I believe that my hon. Friend was referring, to ensure that they are developed further.

Carl Bridgewater Case

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of the Carl Bridgewater case; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Maclean): I shall reply to the representations that I received on 8 June when they have been fully considered, and after any necessary further inquiries have been carried out.

Mr. Corbyn: Is it not now obvious to the Minister and to all normal thinking people in the country that there is something seriously wrong with the conviction of the Bridgewater Three? In the light of the revelations made by the foreman of the jury at the original trial about the


evidence that was put before the jury, is it not obvious that it is time for the Home Office rapidly to complete its review of the evidence that was put before it and enable justice to be considered by referring the case back to the Court of Appeal? The issue could then be brought out into the open again and justice could finally be done.

Mr. Maclean: It is highly premature of the hon. Gentleman to jump to that conclusion. I assure him that we shall pay close attention to Mr. O'Malley's views when we look again at the case. However, it is well established that a simple change of mind by a juror cannot by itself have any legal significance for the safety of a conviction. The solicitor for the convicted man acknowledged that point in the recent petition. I repeat that we shall consider carefully all the representations that we have received before coming to any conclusion.

Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend recall that in the past few weeks one of the defendants in the Bridgewater case has been demonstrating on the roof of Gartree prison in my constituency? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the governor of that prison on his calm handling of the demonstration and to congratulate the Prison Service and the local police on bringing the matter to a close without injury or loss of life? Does he agree the proper way to deal with complaints such as that raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is to approach the Home Office directly rather than demonstrating on or about the prison?

Mr. Maclean: I congratulate the governor of the prison and his staff most sincerely on the sensible and caring way in which they handled that demonstration. I can only agree with my hon. Friend. We shall consider the representations that have been received thoroughly and carefully before coming to any conclusion on the matter. External demonstrations do not help our deliberative processes one iota.

Mr. Mullin: May I put it as gently as possible to the Minister that it is obvious to most sensible people who take a serious interest in the case that there is something seriously wrong and that the case should go back to the Court of Appeal? There is also an urgent need for the Home Office to demonstrate that it has learnt some lessons from the events of the past five years. Therefore, the sooner the case is referred back to the Court of Appeal, the better.

Mr. Maclean: I do not suppose that this is the first time that it has been said to the hon. Gentleman that his opening remarks were phrased in a slightly biased way. It is not for the Home Office to decide the guilt or innocence of the men. That is for the Court of Appeal. The issues that have been raised recently in publicity have been considered by the Court of Appeal in previous reviews. However, fresh representations have been made and we are going through them carefully to determine whether they contain any information that suggests that new evidence could he referred to the Court of Appeal. Of course, we want to reach conclusions as soon as we can, but it is more important that we are careful and exact in our deliberations.

Sentencing

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office what consideration is being given to further changes to the criminal sentences available to the courts.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The Government are determined to ensure that the courts have available an effective range of measures to deal with offenders who appear before them. I will not hesitate to add to or increase the level of those penalties if the need arises.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that custodial sentences are essential to protect the public from those citizens who want to destroy or disrupt society? Will he condemn those, including members of the Labour party, who wish to leave the courts powerless to deal with persistent juvenile offenders, who are a growing problem within our society? Will he reinforce his commitment to the secure training units at which such juveniles could be locked up and kept off society's streets and out of the way so that ordinary members of the public can go about their business in peace and security?

Mr. Howard: The answer to all my hon. Friend's questions is yes. We are determined to take action to ensure that, in particular, those juvenile offenders who persistently flout the law and cause great offence to people who witness and suffer from their behaviour are subject to a period of detention. I certainly intend to pursue the objectives that were set out by my predecessor.

Mr. Blair: First, I welcome the new Home Secretary to his position and hope, at least for the sake of the continuity, that he will stay a little longer than his predecessors, though not for too long. Does he agree that one major cause of concern about sentencing is the disparity in the types of sentence given for similar types of offence? That was highlighted again this week by the so-called vigilante cases, some of which were treated relatively leniently and others, such as the Norfolk case, with considerable severity. What proposals will the Home Secretary consider to introduce greater consistency in sentencing so that sentences are handed down by the courts on the basis of established principles of justice and not as a lottery?

Mr. Howard: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and I look forward to facing him across the Dispatch Box for a long period, so long as he remains on the Opposition Bench and I and my hon. Friends remain on the Government Bench.
We wish to see greater consistency in sentencing. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, however, cases that appear before the courts involve an infinite range of circumstances, which have to be taken into account. In recent months the hon. Gentleman has taken it upon himself to parade as a guardian of law and order, but the trouble is that he himself has a large number of previous offences to be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman offended by voting against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. He has offended by voting against the prevention of terrorism Act on each and every occasion that it has come


before the House. The hon. Gentleman has no credentials to appear in the guise of a guardian of law and order, and we will make sure that the country does not forget that.

Mr. Thurnham: I begin by most warmly congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his well-deserved appointment. Will he recognise the value of the right of appeal against lenient sentences? Is it not a disgrace that Labour Members failed to admit their mistake in opposing that measure?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes, and I entirely agree with the point that he made. In the teeth of opposition from the Labour party and other parties, we introduced the provisions that now enable the Attorney-General to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has still not admitted that he and his party were wrong to oppose that measure.

Royal Commission on Criminal Justice

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office when he now expects the royal commission on criminal justice to report.

Mr. Howard: I understand that the Royal Commission plans to publish its report on 6 July.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Home Secretary agree that the royal commission was set up because of the considerable concern about the relatively small, but extremely disturbing, number of miscarriages of justice and the soaring crime rate in this country? It was set up for those reasons, but one of the main lobbying groups wants to get rid of the right to silence. Does the Home Secretary agree that getting rid of the right to silence will do nothing to solve the problem of miscarriages of justice, and may increase the number of cases? It certainly will not reduce crime levels in this country, as it will not increase the number of people caught. Does he accept that many Ministers like to use the right to silence and not answer questions in the House, but we cannot presume that they are all guilty?

Mr. Howard: The royal commission was set up because of a widespread feeling that our system of criminal justice was not working as well as it should and had become far too much of an esoteric game, and not enough of a vehicle for determining guilt and innocence, which should be its function. I shall look carefully at the royal commission's report when it appears; I shall not prejudge it, and I shall not answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as I want to see what the royal commission has to say on the matter. In due course, I shall announce my proposals.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are two kinds of miscarriage of justice, one being the conviction of the innocent and the other the acquittal of the guilty?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who makes an extremely important point. Anyone who takes lightly the extent of concern in this country about those guilty people who walk free from our courts is actually behaving in a way which will earn them the contempt of our people.

Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary said that he would not prejudge the royal commission, but he has already announced a number of amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which is before the House of Lords. Has he had prior notice of the views of the royal commission, or has he prejudged it?

Mr. Howard: We have not announced any amendments to any Criminal Justice Bill before the House of Lords, but we have tabled several amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which is before the House of Commons, because, in common with most other people who have considered these matters, we recognise that there are deficiencies in our existing arrangements which need to be remedied without delay. We need to provide without delay for the courts to be able to examine all previous offences and we need to remedy the inability of the courts to take account of the fact that offences have been committed while the offenders were on bail. Where we see clear and blatant deficiencies in our law, we will not hesitate to act speedily to remedy them.

Mr. Bellingham: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the royal commission, will he bear in mind the case of the Harleston Two, the so-called Norfolk vigilantes? Is he aware that both men, who were sentenced to five years' imprisonment, had no previous convictions whatsoever? Will he discuss with the royal commission the need to speed up appeals, and will he do all that he can to ensure that that particular appeal is dealt with as soon as possible?

Mr. Howard: I understand the widespread concern about the case to which my hon. Friend refers. He will know that as that matter is the subject of a pending appeal, I cannot comment upon it. It is important that we retain the distinction between vigilance and vigilantes and we must not condone any suggestion that it is right for people to take the law into their own hands. I know that my hon. Friend will agree with that, but I know the concern that is widely felt about the case to which he refers.

Mr. Allen: While unemployment and poor housing can never be an excuse for crime, does the Secretary of State accept that 14 years of Government policies on unemployment, housing and education could have contributed in any way to the appalling rise in the levels of crime over the same period?

Mr. Howard: No. Assertions such as those made by the hon. Gentleman do more to blur the crucial distinction between right and wrong than almost anything else. The Conservative party knows that that distinction must never be blurred, and we will not blur it or seek refuge in the verbiage emanating from the hon. Gentleman.

Police Numbers

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to change procedures for determining the number of police officers in each police force.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): My right hon. and learned Friend will be making a statement in the near future when he lays before Parliament his White Paper on police reform.

Mr. Moss: Does my hon. Friend recognise that chief constables will warmly welcome the freedom to take their own decisions regarding manpower levels? Is it not absurd that the knee-jerk opposition to the proposals so aptly shown by Labour Members will lead them to oppose a reform which will give chief constables the option of putting more police on the beat?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the present system, a chief officer who wishes to increase his funding effectively has to express his bid in terms of additional police officers, but it cannot make sense for the Home Office to determine how many officers each force should have. It must be up to the chief officers to decide on the basis of local intelligence and local needs.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: May I express my surprise that the new Secretary of State expressed support for the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which we are currently in the process of seeking to amend? Will his support for more policemen on the beat be enhanced by the Government's proposals for restrictions on spending on police recruitment for the next three years?

Mr. Wardle: Many aspects of the 1991 Act made a great deal of sense. If the hon. Gentleman is following the Committee proceedings on the Bill, he will understand how it is now to be improved.
As for police funding, the hon. Gentleman and the House must agree that it is up to chief officers to use their resources and to decide what to spend on manpower and what to spend on equipment. That must make sense.

Mr. Brandreth: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the past 14 years police numbers have risen by 16,500 and funding for them has risen by about 80 per cent? That shows the priority that we attach to the police. Does he agree that civilianisation and other ways of putting more police on the beat are to be encouraged and that it must be up to the local chief constables to decide how best to serve the community?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right. In addition to the statistics that he has just provided, I am sure that he will bear in mind the fact that, since 1979, almost 15,000 more civilian posts have been created and about 6,600 uniformed officers have been released for beat duties as a result of the civilianisation process.
It must be up to chief officers to decide how to deploy their resources. The House will understand that I cannot speculate about the White Paper, but some pointers were provided in the statement on 23 March. I can assure the House that the theme of the White Paper will be partnership between the police and public, and locally based and locally organised policing—so much was clear from the statement.

Sheehy Report

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for consultation on the report of the Sheehy inquiry.

Mr. Howard: The report will be published next week. I intend to ask for comments on its recommendations by the end of September.

Mr. McFall: This heavily leaked report has caused nothing but public fear and concern. What benefits will

performance-related pay and crime league tables bring to the maintenance of public tranquillity and good community relations? Is this not a privatisation too far? In their haste to privatise, the Government will do nothing but destroy the public ethic.

Mr. Howard: I shall certainly not comment on leaks of the report long before it has been published, but I hope that there will be no knee-jerk reactions of the sort that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman on the part of the Labour party or from any other quarter. I hope that everyone will recognise that we must have up-to-date arrangements within which the police can operate, give their best and be able to wage the war against crime more effectively. That is the purpose of all the reforms that we have in train, including those on which Sir Patrick Sheehy will report next week.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend know whether the Sheehy inquiry has been looking into the possible recruitment to the police force of Army officers who are unfortunately available as a result of the "Options for Change" policy? Does he agree that those officers could probably provide the high fliers that the police need so much? Is he aware, however, of the resistance of this idea on the part of the more stick-in-the-mud elements in the police? Can this matter be raised in the consultations?

Mr. Howard: I have a great deal of sympathy with that point. It can certainly be raised in the consultations on the Sheehy report. As to whether it is dealt with in that report, I fear that we shall have to wait until next week.

Miss Hilda Murrell (Murder)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him to reopen the case of the murder of Miss Hilda Murrell of Shrewsbury.

Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations about the case from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), from the publishing company Simon and Schuster, and from Mr. Gary Murray.

Mr. Dalyell: With the publication of Gary Murray's book "Enemies of the State" by the reputable publishing house of Simon and Schuster, and with the reopening of the police investigation, should not the Home Office deal with the question of whether taxpayers' money was involved in what Chief Detective Superintendent David Cole, in the course of a three-hour interview with me, described as a brutal and callous murder? In the light of the answer by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), then Minister of State, Home Office, on 19 December 1984 in the Consolidated Fund debate, and again in an Adjournment debate in June 1985, is there not an obligation on the Home Office to take a deep interest in these tragic events?

Mr. Wardle: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of the misuse of public funds in this regard, I hope that he will bring it to the Home Office. No such evidence is available at the moment. West Mercia police have always been willing to consider new evidence in this unsolved case if it should come to light. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the


Home Office will keep abreast of any developments arising from West Mercia's review of Mr. Murray's latest allegations. I hope that it will help the hon. Gentleman and the House if I say that nothing has come to light yet that would cause me to depart from the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw)—when he was a Home Office Minister—in a letter dated 28 December 1984, when he asserted that allegations about the security services being involved in Miss Murrell's death were totally without foundation. The situation has not changed.

Sentencing

Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office what representations he has received regarding sentencing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: I have received a large number of letters expressing concerns about sentencing. I take those concerns extremely seriously. As my hon. Friend will know, proposals are currently before the House to enhance the ability of the courts to deal appropriately and effectively with those convicted of criminal offences.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the mounting public concern about children below the age of criminal responsibility who are none the less persistent and dangerous criminals? Often they are aided and abetted by social services, which enables them to get off scot free and to commit crimes again. Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that, because of sentencing policy, these youngsters are acquiring a very dangerous disrespect for the criminal justice system? Will he, in his own words of a few moments ago, remedy the present situation without delay, for the help and protection of the public?

Mr. Howard: I certainly understand and sympathise with the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is possible for young children who are below the age of criminal knowledge to be brought before the courts now, if they are beyond parental control. The most important lesson that children can learn is the difference between right and wrong—a lesson which cannot be learnt too soon, in their homes and schools. I welcome the efforts of all those who are increasingly drawing attention to its importance.

Mr. Dowd: Does the Home Secretary agree that, while it is critically important that we have a sentencing policy that both reflects the severity of the offence and punishes the wrongdoer, it is also important that we have a judicial system that does not inflict sentences on people who are patently innocent? I wrote to the Home Secretary some days ago requesting an urgent meeting to discuss the issues arising from the Court of Appeal judgment, a fortnight ago, in respect of my constituents Lisa and Michelle Taylor. When will the Home Secretary respond to my request for an urgent meeting, and when can we consider in full the damning indictments of the conduct of the Metropolitan police and certain sections of the press?

Mr. Howard: Of course it is true that we must have a system of criminal justice that both acquits the innocent and convicts the guilty. The hon. Gentleman's request is under consideration in my Department.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of a recent incident on the Weston estate in Macclesfield, where local responsible, sensible people unfortunately had to take the law into their own hands in dealing with a persistent young juvenile offender, who has appeared before the courts on many occasions but who has been released back into the community? Will my right hon. and learned Friend act to ensure that the courts of this land, which currently cannot impose adequate sentences on persistent juvenile offenders, have the power to do so in the very near future, in order to prevent people being forced—for their own defence and in their own interests—to take the law into their own hands?

Mr. Howard: I have made it abundantly clear that I am determined to make sure that the courts have the sentencing powers that they need to deal adequately and effectively with offenders. I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that we cannot allow people to take the law into their own hands. Members of the public can do a great deal to help the police without taking the law into their own hands. I am absolutely convinced that we will make progress in this area only if we can build an effective partnership between the public and the police, and if we do not leave the fight against crime entirely to the police. There is much that can be done short of people taking the law into their own hands. A part of that is making sure that the courts have adequate sentencing powers.

Mr. Tony Banks: How can the Minister possibly talk about knowing the difference between right and wrong when a Minister gives a present of a watch to a crook, and other Ministers go round the world trying to get funding? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I can shout as loud as hon. Gentlemen. Did the Minister hear that question?

Mr. Howard: I heard it, Madam Speaker. I thought that it was an astonishing contribution from the hon. Gentleman, whose association with the Greater London council, which did so much harm to law enforcement, law and order and policing while it had some vestigial responsibility in this capital of ours, is well known and will not be forgotten, at least by anyone on this side of the House.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to ensure that those who commit rapes and other sexual offences receive appropriate custodial sentences.

Mr. Howard: We are ensuring that courts have the powers they need to impose severe penalties for serious offences. The Criminal Justice Act 1991, which was mocked by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) a few moments ago—I hope that his constituents will know that he mocked it—gives the courts power to pass longer sentences on violent and sexual offenders in order to protect the public from serious harm.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that recent cases have proved that the Attorney-General needs the power to appeal against lenient sentences? He mentioned the opposition of hon. Gentlemen to that measure. Is he aware that the recent decision to extend to custody the sentence of a young man convicted of a serious sexual offence was greeted with


enthusiasm by a number of hon. Gentlemen? Are we expecting a U-turn, or is this to be another matter to be "set aside" by hon. Gentlemen?

Mr. Howard: If the Opposition were remotely consistent in their approach, we might expect a U-turn, but all we have at the moment are parrot cries of enthusiasm when the Attorney-General exercises the powers to which the Opposition were persistently opposed and complete silence from the Labour party as to whether they now, belatedly and reluctantly, recognise that we were right to give the Attorney-General those powers. I thought that even today the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) might admit that he was wrong to oppose giving the Attorney-General those powers, but he sits there in silence, despite the fact to which my hon. Friend referred.

Ms Ruddock: Does the Home Secretary accept, further to his answer, that, in the longer-term interests of society, what happens to sexual offenders while in prison is equally important? Can he explain, therefore, why, when 2,000 inmates are eligible for sexual offender treatment programmes, provision has been made for a mere 300?

Mr. Howard: I am very sorry that the hon. Lady did not respond to the invitation that I offered to her hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield a moment ago. Many people will have regretted the fact that she, too, chose to remain silent on that issue. On the question that she posed, that is a matter that I am prepared to look at. I am given to understand that the figures which the hon. Lady quoted are inaccurate, and I will look into their accuracy. I understand that we have a programme under way for dealing with the point which she raised, and we will pursue that.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a link between the spread of pornographic material and the growth in offences of rape and serious assault? Is he prepared to consider strengthening the law to prevent the spread of such material?

Mr. Howard: We certainly need to look at the law in this area. I have not yet reached any conclusions on that matter, but I will certainly take my hon. Friend's point into account.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does not the Secretary of State agree that there might be some improvement in this area of concern if it were compulsory for judges to undergo sexual awareness training?

Mr. Howard: No.

Security Information

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he has had about the co-ordination of security information between police forces.

Mr. Howard: My Department keeps closely in touch with police forces and the Security Service about these arrangements. Lead responsibility for intelligence work against Irish Republican terrorism in Great Britain was transferred to the Security Service in October and I am not persuaded that further changes are necessary.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at a time when crime is becoming ever more sophisticated, it is ridiculous that there is not one proper centre to co-ordinate intelligence between the 43 police forces in England and Wales? Can he give the House an undertaking that he will overhaul and streamline the system so that drug trafficking, terrorism and other vicious crimes do not flourish?

Mr. Howard: I am as keen as my hon. Friend to make sure that such crimes do not flourish, but I am not satisfied that the present arrangements need to be changed in the way that he suggests. As I said a few moments ago, lead responsibility for intelligence work in terrorism has been transferred to the Security Service. The head of the anti-terrorist branch has a co-ordinating responsibility in relation to police work in this area. I am not satisfied that a case has been made for any change in those arrangements.,

Mr. Trimble: May I urge the Home Secretary to reconsider what he has just said and to look again seriously at suggestions recently made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)? It is clear that there is a need for more to be done. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is also clear that on both sides of the Irish sea the security services are not having the desired success? Consequently, there is merit in the suggestion that a senior Minister with authority throughout the United Kingdom should be appointed to tackle this issue.

Mr. Howard: I am not persuaded that the hon. Gentleman's case has been made out. It would, for example, be very odd if we were to remove responsibility for security operations in the Province from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am not satisfied that what the hon. Gentleman suggests would constitute an improvement in the arrangements.

Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied by the exchange of information between the Security Service and West Mercia police force in relation to the murder of Miss Hilda Murrell? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the author of a recent book, who has raised allegedly new evidence on this case, is in fact a dog handler for the RAF police, with Security Service experience of some 20 years ago, who has been misrepresented by the publishers of the hook as a serving member of the Security Service?

Mr. Howard: I note my hon. Friend's comments. I have nothing further to add to what was said by my hon. Friend a few moments ago on this question.

Mr. Skinner: What happened to the co-ordination between the security forces and the police force at the time that Asil Nadir decided to flee the country? Is it a fact that the British establishment and the Tory Government aided and abetted Asil Nadir to get out of the country, because he would have spilled the beans about all the Tory Ministers and Tory MPs if he had got into court?

Mr. Howard: I shall leave others to comment upon the paranoia of the hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theories. I am perfectly satisfied with the arrangements for co-ordination that have been in existence for some time, including during the period to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Probation Service

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the probation service is taking to work with the voluntary sector.

Mr. Maclean: The probation service undertakes a wide range of partnerships with the voluntary sector to support effective programmes for dealing with offenders in the community. The Home Office currently provides over £20 million a year in grants to voluntary bodies to supplement the resources made available by probation committees. We greatly value the contribution that the voluntary sector is making in reducing crime in that and other ways.

Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many probation officers seem obsessed with community service as rehabilitation rather than punishment? Is it not small wonder that far too many persistent offenders see community service as a very soft option indeed and cock a snook at the law? Will he make sure in his discussions with probation officers that any future programmes instil a sense of discipline and responsibility?

Mr. Mackan: Service in the community and community service orders should not be—and I will ensure that they are not—a soft option. The probation service can do a lot of good in the community by dealing with offenders who are sentenced. One such sentence is a community service order, and we will ensure that by no stretch of the imagination will it be regarded as a let-off.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q 1. Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall he having further meetings later today.

Ms Quin: In view of the leaked letter in the Daily Mail today, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say where he thinks the borderline lies between a ministerial misjudgment and a resignation offence?

The Prime Minister: I have stated before in the case to which the hon. Lady refers, and I reiterate today, that I believe that my hon. Friend has acted with complete propriety in raising with the Attorney-General concerns that had been put to him about Mr. Nadir's case. I have no criticism of my hon. Friend on that account, or of his performance as a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office.
My hon. Friend has been to see me this afternoon. He told me that he deeply regretted the embarrassment being caused to the Government by continuing speculation about his role. On those grounds, and on those grounds alone, he asked me if he could stand aside from his duties. With regret, I have accepted his resignation.

Mr. Ian Bruce: May I ask my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. We are wasting valuable time.

Mr. Bruce: As my right hon. Friend has personal knowledge of Nigeria, may I ask him to say what reaction Her Majesty's Government have to the declaration by the military regime in Nigeria that they will overturn the results of the general election for the president, particularly in view of the fact that all the international observers and internal monitors felt that the election was free and fair?

The Prime Minister: I believe that this is an important matter. I wrote to President Babangida last week to support the transition to civilian rule. I deplore the military Government's subsequent decision to ignore the results of elections which British and other observers considered free and fair. We are, as a result, reviewing our relations with Nigeria, including new aid, and we have taken a number of immediate steps.
We are withdrawing our military advisory team and will not provide new military training courses. We have suspended the issue of visas to members of the Nigerian armed forces and the privileged treatment of visa applications by Government officials. We are consulting European Community partners and other allies on possible further measures. I hope that the Nigerian Government will take full account of the strength of international feeling and will reconsider what I believe is a gravely mistaken decision.

Mr. John Smith: Is it not deplorable that the lack of any industrial policy or of a proper strategy for our defence industries has resulted in a polarised choice between Rosyth and Devonport for the Trident contract and a loss of thousands of jobs at both yards? Why do the Government not accept that, for industrial and defence reasons, this country needs the capability and expertise of both dockyards and their highly skilled management and work force?

The Prime Minister: I must say that the right hon. Gentleman neglected to mention in that supplementary question precisely what the circumstances might be if the defence cuts that his party proposed should ever come into being. He proposed defence cuts that would probably have meant that we had no yards at all, no capacity to defend ourselves, very few soldiers, hardly a Navy and barely a plane.

Mr. John Smith: Is it not a matter of record that the Government announced in the House in 1984, and repeated in 1985, that the refit contract would go to Rosyth and that such a commitment was repeated to the work force at the time of privatisation? What weight does the Prime Minister attach to specific promises given to either Rosyth or Devonport?

The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that at that time the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party were keen to scrap Trident and said so repeatedly. How odd it is, people may think, that the Opposition want to scrap military hardware on one day and then fight for it desperately on another day. One is bound to ask where their hearts really lie.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister accept, as he was reminded by the noble Lord Younger, who had responsibility in the Conservative Government, that a


specific commitment was given to the House in 1984? Does the Prime Minister accept that that is the case? If it is, what weight can anyone give to any undertaking that the Government give to anyone?

The Prime Minister: In view of the total disconjunction between the Opposition's policies and what they are now saying, that sort of comment from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is barefaced cheek. I suggest that he sets that aside.

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the construction industry has had a difficult time during the recent recession. Will he join me in welcoming the good news yesterday that orders for new housing are now up by nearly 30 per cent. and that building is going on across the country, including in my constituency? Will he join me in saying that that is good news for the construction industry and all those who work in it?

The Prime Minister: I know that it has been a difficult time for our construction industry throughout the United Kingdom. That is why we announced special measures to help that industry in the autumn statement last year. I welcome the much better news that is becoming more apparent daily. It is good news for builders and for the economy as a whole. In construction, manufacturing, exports and on all sides, our prospects are improving and the economy is strengthening.

Mr. Ashdown: Last night the Secretary of State for Social Security called for a widespread cross-party public debate on the problems created by our present mountain of debt and the implications for long-term rises in social spending. That is an interesting suggestion. What specific proposals does the Prime Minister have to make it a reality?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it perfectly clear that we are carrying out a review of social security and I understand that, in secret, the principal Opposition party is doing the same. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will also contribute to that debate and we shall be happy to receive any representations from them. However, the day that I get representations from the Liberal Democrats about any difficult decision will be a remarkable day indeed.

Mr. Roger Evans: Will my right hon. Friend join me in rejecting the impudent talk about an industrial policy from the Labour party and welcome, for example, the success of QPL Holdings of Hong Kong and its new £42 million investment in south Wales? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is the significance in commercial and industrial prosperity of the concentration of enterprise and expertise which attracts orders and creates jobs?

The Prime Minister: I note with interest that the Opposition scoff at fresh jobs for Wales. It has been a good week for Wales and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It shows how attractive Britain now is to inward investors. It shows also that the Labour party hates new jobs, wherever they may come from, if it feels

that any of the credit will rub off on the Government's policies. We intend to keep Britain attractive for inward investment. There will be no minimum wage, no works councils, no social chapter and none of the nonsense that we hear from the Opposition that represents their industrial policy.

Ms Coffey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Ms Coffey: Is the Prime Minister aware of the escalation in housing association rents, which is causing especial hardship to elderly people who are not entitled to full housing benefit? What has he to say to my constituent, Mrs. Riley, whose rent has increased from just under £26 a week to just over £50 a week? Does he think that that is totally unacceptable and what is he prepared to do about it?

The Prime Minister: In this country, we have perhaps the most generous system of housing benefit that we have ever seen and if the hon. Lady genuinely wanted a response to her question, she should have provided me with details of Mrs. Riley's income so that I could have responded.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when Mr. Baldwin, in his day, was under assault from the press barons of that time, his retort was that the newspapers were seeking to exercise power without responsibility, which is the traditional role of the harlot?

The Prime Minister: I will reply in a parody of the words of another great Englishman: Assault? I see no assault.

Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Ms Eagle: Does the Prime Minister share the sense of outrage at today's revelations that British taxpayers will have to foot a £1 million legal aid bill run up by that generous benefactor of the Tory party and bail bandit Mr. Asil Nadir, who does not seem to be short of a bob or two in northern Cyprus, at the same time as his Government are denying millions of people of modest means any access to legal aid at all? What is the Prime Minister prepared to do about that outrageous use of public money?

The Prime Minister: It is extremely unusual to hear the Labour party worrying about the taxpayer—refreshing perhaps, but just a touch unusual. As for legal aid, the usual cry from the Opposition Benches is for more and more legal aid.

Mr. Coe: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent education and industry initiative that encourages industry to make an input into the future direction of our educational needs? Does he agree that those people who are for ever claiming to speak on behalf of the country's manufacturing base, and the necessary skills for its survival, do so with no credibility whatever while they are still supporting the boycott of tests this year and the dismantling of our city technology colleges?

The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend's logic is unanswerable. I agree with him entirely. Opposition Members may claim to speak for industry—we build for it.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Campbell: In view of the Government's decision to cut the defence budget by 15 per cent. over the next five years, will the Prime Minister tell the House when he will announce a proper defence diversification strategy and prevent an appalling loss of skilled jobs?

The Prime Minister: I can only assume that the hon. Lady was not here for the earliest part of Question Time or she may not have asked such a question. She should consider the impact of her own party's defence policies before she criticises ours.

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Rowe: Can the Prime Minister advise me on how I might reply to a 73-year-old constituent, who is in frail health and is partially deaf and partially blind? She wrote to me about the review of the social security budget and said that the Opposition have no programme whatsoever except to take taxation up and that were this Government ever to be unseated the results would be unthinkable.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's constituent is very perceptive. I think that he should say to her that she can rest assured that the Government will stand by their commitment to the weak and vulnerable. Secondly, he could say to her that she should not believe the routine scares that come from Opposition Members day by day. Thirdly, he could tell her that the Labour party has no constructive ideas and, fourthly, he could tell her that we have no intention of doing other than remaining in government for the rest of this century and beyond.

Dockyards

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the future of the naval dockyards.
The House has been waiting to hear our proposals on the future of the royal dockyards, and in particular on the location of nuclear refitting. This matter has been under long and careful consideration and I am now ready to place our proposals before the House.
During the 1980s, the size of the nuclear submarine refit programme as a whole meant that all existing submarine docks at Devonport and Rosyth were required, and a new dock had to be provided for refitting Trident. We indicated at that time that the new facility was to be built at Rosyth. With the end of the cold war and the reduction in the size of the submarine and surface fleet, it became possible and desirable to consider new and less expensive solutions. Accordingly, in July 1991, some two years ago, the Ministry of Defence invited Devonport and Rosyth to make proposals for nuclear refitting work.
Since that time, we have subjected the proposals made by the two dockyard companies to the most detailed and intense scrutiny. We have had three proposals: two from Babcock Thorn Ltd.—one in respect of the new RD57 facility at Rosyth and the other for upgrading existing docks at Rosyth—and one from Devonport Management Ltd. in respect of the upgrading of existing docks at Devonport. The proposals have been evaluated for comparative purposes by the Ministry of Defence, supported by independent specialist advisers.
That evaluation has taken some time. I know that the decision has been keenly awaited, but I do not regret the time that has been taken. The fact is that the upgrade proposals that are now being considered cost more than £250 million less than those that we originally had under consideration. I make no apologies for allowing the competitive process to push the cost down, to the benefit of both the Royal Navy and the taxpayer. We were also keen to ensure that both dockyards had a full opportunity to put forward proposals on a fair and equal basis.
The scrutiny has, however, not been simply a cost comparison. Before we could consider the cost of the proposals, two conditions had to be fulfilled. The first was that the proposals had to be completely sound and technically well-founded. Our detailed examination has reassured us that the proposals from both yards can be relied on to produce facilities of the required standard and that both yards have the skills and the experience to carry out submarine and surface ship refitting. In the past 10 years, Devonport has refitted seven nuclear submarines and 72 surface ships; Rosyth has refitted five nuclear submarines and 79 surface ships, including 11 frigates and destroyers.
The second key consideration has been safety, which rightly must be subject to independent validation. Our detailed analysis over a period of months shows clearly that each of the three proposals should reach the very high standard that is required.
Turning to the comparison of the cost of the various proposals, our scrutiny has taken place against the background of the need to get the best possible value for money from the defence budget. In particular, I need to ensure—as do the chiefs of staff—that the proportion of

the defence budget spent on the support of the armed forces is kept as small as possible, so that the proportion that can go directly to the front line should be as large as possible. I am sure that the House will join with me in supporting that objective.
We have considered both the capital costs and the operating costs associated with the various proposals. With regard to capital costs, the results of the analysis show that our estimate, on a like-for-like basis, of the three proposals is as follows: the proposal to build new docks at Rosyth, known as RD57, would cost some £369 million on top of the £100 million already spent; the proposals for upgrading of docks in Rosyth would cost £248 million; and the proposals from Devonport would cost about £236 million. This shows that, despite the sums that have already been spent, the RD57 project—that is, a new purpose-built dock—is very much more expensive than either of the other two proposals, and I do not propose to consider it further. The two upgrade proposals are much closer in capital cost, but there is a clear difference, in Devonport's favour, of £12 million.
With regard to operating costs, we have looked at these over 15 years, by which time the capital work would have been completed, the necessary rationalisation taken place and the new arrangements settled down. Our analysis shows that, on operating costs, Devonport is again the cheaper yard, by a total of some £52 million over the period. Taking all those factors into account, the total difference between the two bids is £64 million in favour of Devonport. Those figures do not include redundancy costs, which again are less if Devonport is the nuclear yard.
Three days ago, we received a completely new suggestion from Babcock Thorn Ltd. That suggestion is that the number of docks where nuclear work can take place should be reduced from two to one, and that the emergency docking facility should be used as the nuclear defuelling and refuelling facility. When we received that suggestion, we had already spent several months in detailed consultation with both companies on their proposals in order to be able to report with confidence the figures I have quoted today. Our period of consideration was extended in January, in part to ensure that Babcock Thorn was able to propose an upgrading solution on the same basis as Devonport. It is quite unreasonable to produce completely new ideas so close to a decision which, if they were relevant, could have been presented at any time over the last six months. But, more important, we are not able to accept any proposal which would deprive the Trident submarines of a dedicated emergency docking facility for significant periods; which would mean that the single nuclear refuelling facility was used for all our submarines, so exposing us to unacceptable risks in the event of an incident or other difficulty; and which, indeed, is untested from a technical and safety point of view.
The view of the First Sea Lord, with which I agree, is that that suggestion imposes an unacceptable level of operational risk and that it should be ruled out. The same would apply to any proposal we received at this stage from Devonport based on the same engineering approach. The only way forward is for us to take a decision based on the analysis which we have before us.
The Government do not believe that it would be prudent to ignore the capital difference of £12 million and the overall difference of £64 million between the Devonport and Rosyth proposals. There are no other relevant factors that point decisively or conclusively to one


yard or the other. I am therefore announcing today our conclusion that, subject to satisfactory contractual negotiations, we shall proceed with the Devonport nuclear refitting facility proposals.
I now turn to our long-term plans for the future of Rosyth. I made it clear in my 9 February statement that our aim is to achieve a healthy competitive structure for non-nuclear refitting. We wish Rosyth to develop into a yard that will bid competitively for surface ship refits and other work. Rosyth already has considerable experience of surface ship work—for example, the highly successful refits of type 42 destroyers carried out over recent years—and we have every confidence in its ability to become a major and successful surface ship yard.
I am conscious of the fact that a significant period of transition will be required to help Rosyth to restructure so that it can concentrate on such work. To enable Rosyth to make that transition, we intend to continue with an allocated programme for 12 years, until 2005. Once nuclear work is concentrated at Devonport, the only allocation of surface ship refits will be to Rosyth; all other refit work will have to be won in competition.
The programme for Rosyth would comprise over half of surface warship refitting, including all aircraft carrier refits, virtually all type 42 destroyer refits and all Hunt class mine warfare vessel refits, as well as other refits of type 23 and type 22 frigates. After the year 2000, that programme will begin to taper down until 2005. These proposals mean that we expect Rosyth to be allocated responsibility for the refits of some 18 major warships. We expect Devonport—as the nuclear yard—to be allocated responsibility for the refits of some 12 nuclear submarines.
Employment at the yards is a matter primarily for the companies concerned. At present, there are some 3,700 people employed at Rosyth. Taking into account the allocated programme to which I have just referred, we estimate that there will be a reduction of about 450 in the work force as a direct result of reduced Ministry of Defence work. Employment on Ministry of Defence work should continue at about this level at least to the turn of the century. The allocation should also provide the basis for Rosyth to bid for extra work and to develop new markets. There is every reason for confidence that, given the skills of the work force and the traditionally high standard of their work, it will be possible for Rosyth to win work in competition, over and above the allocated programme, and that should increase employment beyond the levels I have outlined. Reductions in employment will not be confined to Rosyth. Because of the declining overall refit programme, we would expect reductions in the numbers employed at Devonport of about 350.
Given the benefit of competition, I am pleased to be able to say that, even during the period of an allocated programme of the kind I have mentioned, there will be a higher proportion of the refit programme available for competition than at present. That proportion will increase after the year 2000 and will apply to the whole of the surface ship refitting programme after 2005. Both dockyards, as well as shipbuilders, will be able to compete for that unallocated work.
Further information setting out the background to these conclusions will be contained in a consultative document which will be published in the near future to provide a basis for consultation with the parties concerned.
I believe that the proposals I have set out today will provide a healthy future for both yards. Trident submarines will carry the deterrent well into the next century. It is therefore essential that they be refitted to the high standards that the Royal Navy expects. The taxpayer equally has a right to expect value for money. My proposals achieve both these objectives, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. George Foulkes: As the Secretary of State for Defence has admitted, the statement is long overdue. The delay and the Government's indecision have caused great distress and division. The procedures adopted by the Ministry of Defence in considering the Trident refit have set yard against yard in the most divisive way, as with the helicopter landing ship, when what is needed is overall planning that gives priority to the defence and industrial needs of the whole country.
We have no doubt about the capacity of the work force at Devonport to carry out the Trident contract satisfactorily, and we acknowledge the sincerity of those in the south-west of England, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and Plymouth city council, who have argued their case powerfully and fairly. However, I am sure that they will accept that the decision is a bitter blow for the men and women of Rosyth. It is also a betrayal of the promises given by previous Tory Secretaries of State for Defence, as Lord Younger recently confirmed. The decision to—

Hon. Members: You would scrap it.

Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State's statement was heard in silence. I hope that all hon. Members during these exchanges will be heard civilly.

Mr. Foulkes: That defence commitment is there to provide free speech in this country, Madam Speaker. The decision announced today must also put the Secretary of State for Scotland in a difficult, if not untenable, position.
The Secretary of State for Defence must give some assurances by answering the following questions. First, as Ministry of Defence consultations have had little impact on the final decisions, will he say whether the latest Rosyth bid will be considered further during the consultation period? Will he also assure the House that the full defence assessment of the costs of both bids will be published in full—not just the totals given in his statement?
Will the Secretary of State also spell out what contractual obligations the Government will have for the refitting work at Rosyth on other vessels during the 12-year period? Such a guarantee is necessary because the Government's bland assurances have proved to be hollow. The work force at Rosyth are clearly not convinced by his promises and they deserve a firm and convincing guarantee.
Will the Secretary of State also say whether he has received an acknowledgment from Babcock Thorn that what he has announced will enable it to continue as a viable operation since, according to my count, he has guaranteed only 18 major ships in 12 years, whereas during the pact 10 years it has refitted 79 ships? Will he also say whether Babcock Thorn accepts his assessment of the work force that it can retain on the basis of future work from the Ministry of Defence?
Will the Secretary of State also assure us that if Babcock Thorn is for any reason unable or unwilling to continue with the contract at Rosyth, the Ministry of Defence will ensure continued operation of the yard? He has agreed that an alternative to Devonport is vital for reasons of competition; it is also necessary for the preservation of our strategic capacity.
This is yet another announcement from the Ministry of Defence that will result in workers losing their jobs—in this case, 800 thrown on the scrap heap in Rosyth and Devonport [Interruption.] I am coming to that. During the past three years, approximately 125,000 defence-related jobs have been lost all over the United Kingdom because of defence cuts, yet the Government continue to reject the call for a strategy for defence conversion and diversification, which was made again today by one of my hon. Friends.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have campaigned for the future of Rosyth dockyard, which is now the largest industrial employer in Scotland. There is absolutely no doubt that it will be under the gravest threat if the Secretary of State, because of his adherence to the free market dogma of privatisation, contractorisation and competitive tendering, fails to give the commitments for which I have asked. I urge him to put the security and economy of the nation before political dogma and to give those guarantees to the House.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman referred to previous statements made in the 1980s. In the nicest possible way, may I remind him that in July 1987 he signed an early-day motion that called on the Government "to cancel Trident" in the light of the changing international climate and impending arms reductions? Does he not realise that, if that recommendation had been accepted by the Government, not only would there have been no nuclear work at either Rosyth or Devenport but the 3,000 civilian jobs in the west of Scotland—arising from Faslane and Coulport—would not have been available? The hon. Gentleman should reflect on what would have been the consequences of his advice. Of course, I have regretted the uncertainty that has been perpetuated over the past few months, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and I know that the House certainly will, that the saving of some £250 million achieved as a result of the process must be a factor that weighs heavily.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that today's announcement will be a bitter blow for the people of Rosyth. Of course I recognise that fact, but I believe that those people will also be relieved and pleased to see that the Government are committed to a two-dockyard solution. As the hon. Gentleman himself confirmed, total job losses as a result of today's announcement will be about 800 at both yards over the next few years.
The purpose of the period of consultation is to enable all who are interested in and affected by the proposals to make suggestions to the Government so that we can see whether they are matters that should have been considered, yet were not taken into account, or they are other relevant matters. In the consultative document, we shall seek to spell out as much information as possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about contractual obligations for the allocated programme. That programme will work in future on exactly the same basis as we have

used over the past few years. We enter negotiations with the yard; we reach agreement on a price; and on that basis the work is allocated. That has been true of both Rosyth and Devonport, and there will be no change in that position.
The hon. Gentleman misunderstood one aspect when he compared the 18 major warships that I mentioned in my statement with the 79 ships that Rosyth has completed over the past few years. He must remember that most of the ships that Rosyth has completed in recent years were fairly minor vessels.

Mr. Foulkes: But very important.

Mr. Rifkind: Indeed, they are very important, but the 18 vessels to which I referred will be major warships. To that number has to be added a large number of smaller vesels, for which Rosyth will continue to be responsible.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Did my right hon. and learned Friend hear the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) refer earlier today to what he anticipated would be an announcement of thousands of job losses associated with Rosyth and Devonport? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the total number of jobs that the Ministry of Defence assesses will be lost are 450 at Rosyth and 350 at Devonport?

Mr. Rifkind: I have to say that there has been a lot of scaremongering both in the south-west of England and in Scotland about the consequences of the decision. As we all really know, both companies have been primarily interested in obtaining the monopoly work that Trident represents and, in order to advance their campaign, there has been a tendency in both parts of the country to exaggerate the consequences of failure. I fully accept that, if we had not been able to announce that we believe in retaining two dockyards in order to ensure competition in the future and if we had not been able to provide the allocated programme for Rosyth, there would, indeed, have been serious and substantial consequences for jobs. However, I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that, in view of the total work that will be available to Rosyth, and the man hours that it will require, the only factor that could change the job figures that I have mentioned would be improvements in productivity at either Rosyth or Devonport.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was Secretary of State for Scotland when his predecessor, Lord Younger, gave an undertaking that the submarine work would go to Rosyth. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman endorse that undertaking at that time; if so, what does he say in response to Lord Younger's contention that an announcement in the terms of his statement today constitutes a "breach of faith"? In the light of the departure from that undertaking, what reliance can people at Rosyth place on the undertakings that the Secretary of State has given today?
Finally, there was no reference in his statement to either strategic or operational considerations. Was any consideration given to the location of the submarine refitting work at Rosyth, in close proximity to Faslane, where the nuclear submarines are to be based?

Mr. Rifkind: My noble Friend Lord Younger was concerned—he was perfectly entitled to be concerned—


about the job implications that would flow from whatever decisions might be taken on submarine matters. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, as is my noble Friend, that, because of the basing of Trident in the west of Scotland, some 3,000 civilian jobs have been created and will continue to be available for the life of the Trident programme. He will also be aware that, as a result of the statement today, the employment situation in Rosyth will remain healthy for the foreseeable future.
The strategic situation is an important matter that needed to be addressed. The view of the Royal Navy and the Ministry of Defence is that the strategic considerations can be satisfied by the placing of Trident work at either Rosyth or Devonport. As to the other matters, the hon. and learned Gentleman might reflect on the vitriolic opposition to Trident which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) professed and which he sought to persuade his Liberal colleagues to adopt in years past.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My right hon. and learned Friend was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task. It was clear that, whichever dockyard failed to get the order, there would be recriminations from those who supported it. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the care with which he has gone into the issues before making his decision.
Clearly, the Select Committee on Defence will want to examine the figures behind the decision and be reassured that the amount of work that will be given to Rosyth will ensure that we have a two-dockyard future. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could tell us when the detailed figures will be available so that we can examine them and get the reassurance that we need.

Mr. Rilkind: The decision which we reached and which I announced today was a difficult and painful one because we were conscious of the fact that, whatever decision was reached, it would have sad consequences for the other yard. I hope that hon. Members will understand that, because the Cabinet reached its conclusion this morning, it is not possible to have the consultative document available today. Of course, we will make it available in the near future and I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Henry McLeish: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that today's statement will be met with profound disappointment by the workers at Rosyth and their families? There will be widespread anger about the breach of faith, betrayal of promises and classic Tory treachery. What do we tell the young apprentices at Rosyth about what will happen after 2005? Can we believe anything that the Secretary of State says, in view or what has happened in the past? Does he acknowledge the comments made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Glasgow Herald on 14 May 1993, "Rosyth will survive. I want Rosyth. to survive with Trident. There is a level playing field. It is half time and we are up three goals to nil."? Why was he defeated yesterday by 11 goals to one? What a team and what a disgrace. Both Secretaries of State should consider resigning.

Mr. Rilkind: I would say to the young apprentices at Rosyth that there are few other firms or industries that have an allocated programme of work for the next 12 years. The programme will provide a substantial amount of work and ensure that, over the next 12 years, Rosyth will have the time that it requires to adapt to a surface ship

role. It already has considerable experience in that area—as I said earlier, over the years it has refitted no fewer than 79 surface ships.
The hon. Gentleman should share my belief in the quality of work and expertise at Rosyth. If he has the interests of the yard in mind—I am sure that he has—I suggest that he will do no service to the young people at Rosyth if he implies that the 12 years of guaranteed work somehow means that they have no prospect of a long-term future. He might end up willing the end that he so obviously wishes to avoid.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the decisions will be received with eager anticipation and enormous relief not only in the Plymouth travel-to-work area but throughout the west country? Does he agree that securing the Trident refit contract reflects enormous credit on the management and work force of Devonport Management Ltd.? They have put together an attractive package which secured the contract on the basis of the defence needs of the nation and value for money.

Mr. Rifkind: I can certainly confirm that both companies made their proposals with a great deal of care and preparation. It fell to us to take the difficult decision of identifying where the conclusion should lie. I said in my statement that the consideration that had to prevail was the gap of some £64 million between the total cost of the two projects. In all other aspects, the position was too close to call on the merits of either bid.

Mr. John McWilliam: Given that the savings to be made in future are speculative and that the investment of £130 million in Rosyth will not now be used and has been poured down the drain, will the Secretary of State tell us who were the specialist external advisers who assisted him in making that difficult decision?

Mr. Rifkind: The money invested in Rosyth was for the RD57 new-build project. It is an inescapable fact that, even if one takes that investment into account, more than £350 million would remain to be spent on Rosyth for a new-build dock. That is £100 million more than the upgrade proposal at either Rosyth or Devonport. Therefore, I do not believe that any serious arguments can be made that it would have been sound or responsible to continue with the new-build project, even taking into account the money already spent. We considered the matter on that basis, but that was the unavoidable conclusion.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, although there will be bitter disappointment in Rosyth at the fact that it did not land the Trident contract, there will also be a great sense of relief that together my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence can guarantee Rosyth's long-term future? Does he further agree that Conservative Members should take no lectures from the Labour party on our commitment to Rosyth? In particular, we will not take lectures from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who has spent his entire political career campaigning against Trident and talking down Rosyth and its work force.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Dunfermline,East was, indeed, a passionate opponent of Trident. If his views had been accepted, neither the 3,000 jobs in the west of Scotland nor any jobs in nuclear work in any other part of the country would exist.

Mr. Alex Salmond: When the Secretary of State for Defence heard about the nuclear alert at Faslane last weekend, did he recall the words of Lord Younger when he said that he had sold the siting of nuclear bases in Scotland by making the specific commitment that the associated work would go to Rosyth? That being the case, why should people in Scotland today take the Rifkind combination of radioactivity in Faslane and redundancies in Fife? Is the commitment to Rosyth today as firm as the commitment to Ravenscraig that was accepted in 1987?
If, as Lord Younger says, the primary issue here is faith, how does the Secretary of State for Defence have the brass neck to remain in office? Why is not the Secretary of State for Scotland taking stock of his position?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland played a major part in ensuring that Rosyth had an important future to which to look forward and that the job implications were as modest as I was able to state earlier. If the Labour party wishes to forget its past policies, the hon. Gentleman might at least admit the current policies of the Scottish National party. Those policies not only would have been of little benefit to Rosyth but would have destroyed 3,000 jobs associated with Faslane and Coulport. In recent weeks, the SNP has been noticeably quiet about the matter. We all know perfectly well why. None of the defence-related jobs would last a moment if the hon. Gentleman's views were endorsed.

Mr. George Kynoch: I am disappointed for, and sympathise with, the management and staff at Rosyth, who must be disappointed after having put so much work into their bid for the contract. I welcome the positive package that my right hon. and learned Friend has provided. I am disappointed that the Opposition seem to have little faith in the ability of management and staff to build on that programme. Until the year 2000, will the allocated programme be sufficient to enable the yard to be profitable without attracting extra work, or will it be required to bid for non-allocated work to be profitable?

Mr. Rifkind: The allocated programme will continue until 2005, not the year 2000. I am not in a position to comment immediately on the profitability of Babcock Thorn, which is the contractor at the present time. The contractual arrangements with Babcock Thorn will continue for two or three years unless they are renewed. Just as Devonport in the next few years will benefit from the nuclear work, which is in effect an allocated programme because of its monopoly characteristics, so Rosyth will benefit from the large programme that I have announced today. That means that, for example, aircraft carriers such as Ark Royal and Invincible will be available for refitting in Rosyth. That was not the case in the past and is well worth reflecting on.

Mr. David Jamieson: On behalf of my constituents in Devonport, may I say that the statement that the Secretary of State has made today

about the nuclear refit contract will be greeted in my constituency and the south-west with great relief at the knowledge that many thousands of jobs will be secure? That sense of relief will be tempered by the knowledge that many jobs will be lost in Scotland.
Does the Secretary of State share my concern at the way in which the tendering process has been handled, as it has caused much distress and worry in both Plymouth and Scotland? Will he review the way in which contracts are awarded to prevent communities such as those in my region and in Rosyth from suffering the sort of agony that they have endured in the past six to eight months?

Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that the period of uncertainty has been a problem; in ideal circumstances, we would want to avoid it, but the responsibility does not lie purely with the Government. Over the past six months, both Devonport and Rosyth have brought forward several modifications to their proposals and requested us to take them into account before reaching a decision, which we have done. That has been an important factor. We could have refused to consider them, but I feel that the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain that the case put forward by his local community had not been fully considered. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I welcome today's historic decision, which will delight the west country taxpayers—as well as the Royal Navy—who believe in fair competition and the principles of the citizens charter. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that unemployment levels in the west country, which are currently higher than those in Scotland, will remain at the same level? Will Devonport Management Ltd. be allowed to release the land that is surplus to its requirements so that it can be used for industrial development and further job creation?

Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that we all wish to welcome those benefits. The matter of most important comment today is that, because of the overall implications of our announcement, the reduction in employment at both Devonport and Rosyth will be far more modest than many anticipated or predicted. Clearly, with the Royal Navy declining in size, it is inevitable that fewer people will be required for refit work, but a reduction in employment in Devonport of 350 and in Rosyth of 450 between now and the turn of the century can be absorbed in both communities without significant difficulty.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his announcement will be widely welcomed by my constituents and will be seen as a turning point in the economic fortunes of the west country? He will understand that I also wish to pay tribute to the skill and tenacity of the management and work force of Devonport Management Ltd. in winning the contract race. Will he confirm that it is not just my constituents or DM L that will benefit from the announcement? The British taxpayer will also benefit from the excellent decision which he has made today.

Mr. Rifkind: Not only the taxpayer but the Royal Navy will benefit from the decision, which had to be taken on the basis of the relative cost of the two tenders. It was a hard-fought compaign by both yards and one pays tribute


to the tenacity of both companies. At the end of the day, the significant difference between the costs of the two proposals proved to be the decisive factor.

Mrs. Irene Adams: The Secretary of State will recognise that there was concern not only at Rosyth but in many constituencies throughout Scotland where there are ancillary jobs connected with the work at Rosyth. Did he make his estimate of 450 redundancies with Babcock Thorn? What is his estimate of job losses in ancillary industries throughout Scotland as a result of this decision?

Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, we have not been able to inform Babcock Thorn of the details of the proposals before informing the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Opposition Members should not be surprised about that; they would have been concerned had it been otherwise. We know Babcock Thorn's expectations of job changes over the next few months and years. The company has been contemplating certain redundancies that are totally unconnected with Ministry of Defence work, but that has nothing to do with Ministry of Defence work—it is something on which Babcock Thorn will need to comment. We have been able to determine the volume of work which the allocated programme that I am announcing today represents. We know the number of man hours of work it represents and how many employees it has required in the past; therefore, unless there are improvements in productivity, which would be welcome, the figures are a consequence of the decision have announced today.

Dr. John Reid: No one ever thought that it would be an easy decision, but the manner in which the Secretary of State has conducted it and his previous record on commitments have left him wide open to accusations of a lack of defence strategy, months of dithering and distress and years of deceit, particularly to Rosyth and Scotland.
Will the Secretary of State answer one or two simple questions? The first has already been put to him. When he was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) about the remarks made by Lord Younger, he commented that naturally Lord Younger was distressed, but that was not the question. Did not the noble Lord say that the decision which has been taken today would be a breach of faith for the Scottish

people by the Tory Government? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, when that initial promise was made, he was in the Scottish Office and was 100 per cent. party to the decision that he has rescinded today?
Secondly, if the facts and figures are so obvious and were put out in such detail today to the Cabinet, will the Secretary of State guarantee that they will be available to the House and right hon. and hon. Members, not tomorrow, not next week, but today, right at the beginning of the consultation period?
Thirdly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm to us the following simple figures? How much expenditure is he committed in his proposals to making, first, at Devonport and, secondly, at Rosyth by the year 2005? Those figures were missing today and will be extremely interesting. I have no doubt that will continue questioning, but we want the ammunition made public and not kept behind the closed doors of the Cabinet so that genuine consultation can take place.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman might have begun his comments by confessing that he, too, called for cancellation of Trident in past years.

Dr. Reid: It is another lie. It was not the Trident system.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his question. I have allowed him to do so. He must now contain himself and hear the answer.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the number of Trident boats determines the number of jobs and the refitting work that is required, and the hon. Gentleman's opposition to a crucial part of the Trident programme does not square well with his comments today.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the views of my noble Friend Lord Younger. He should consider the views of my noble Friend, who, in his letter to The Times, said:
I know that many in Scotland would therefore feel badly let down if a major part of these jobs were now to be removed from Scotland.
The consequence of the statement today is that employment in Rosyth and in Devonport is broadly the same. The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We are now moving on to the business statement.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week. The business will be as follows:

MONDAY 28 JUNE—Opposition day (15th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Economic, Environmental and Proliferation Implications of a Decision to bring THORP into operation" in the name of the Liberal Democrats; followed by a debate on regional development in the name of Plaid Cymru.

Motion relating to the first report, Session 1991–92, of the Select Committee on Members' Interests entitled "Registration and Declaration of Members' Financial Interests" (HC 326).

Debate on the third report, Session 1990–91, of the Select Committee on Members' Interests entitled "Parliamentary Lobbying" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House (HC 586).

TUESDAY 29 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords].

Motion on the Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations.

WEDNESDAY 30 JuNE—Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.

THURSDAY I JULY—There will be a debate on law and order on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 2 JULY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 5 JULY—Opposition day (16th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "The Continuing Closure of Coal Mines" on an Opposition motion.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 30 June at 10.30 am to consider European Community Documents as follows: Committee A, documents Nos. 4116/92 and 6227/93 relating to colours for use in foodstuffs; Committee B, documents Nos. COM (92) 84, 9973/92, 5456/93 and 6006/93, relating to structural funds.

[ Wednesday 30 June:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 4116/92 and 6227/93, colours for use in foodstuffs; relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 24-ix (1991–92), HC 79-xxx ( 1992–93).

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: COM (92) 84, 9973192, 5456/93 and 6006/93; relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-ii ( 1992–93 ), HC 79-xiv ( 1992–93), HC 79-xxvi ( 1992–93 ) and HC 79-xxx ( 1992–93 ).]

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: May I remind the Leader of the House that there is a long-standing request for a debate on the Government's public expenditure programme? As I have reminded him in the past, we would like to debate the public expenditure programme in its full glory before it is hacked to pieces in the process of Cabinet discussion.
In terms of the use of public expenditure, I also ask the Leader of the House to seek a statement from his colleagues about the use of legal aid. The right hon. Gentleman will be conscious of the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House at the suggestions in the press today that—at a time when many people on low

incomes are being denied access to legal aid because of the Government's decisions—Mr. Nadir may benefit from what may be as much as £1 million of taxpayers' money in legal aid. Many hon. Members would like some information about that.
On the matter of law enforcement—particularly as there is to be a debate on law and order next week—I wish to raise a matter with the Leader of the House that has been raised with him a number of times before. May we have as early a statement as possible about the Government's plans for the structure of the police force, as rumours have caused considerable anxiety across the country? Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information on whether there will be a statement soon on the Sheehy report, which has implications for the morale and development of the police service?

Mr. Newton: On the first and much repeated request concerning public expenditure, I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find Government time next week for a debate. I continue to find some conflict in the demands from the right hon. Lady who, were Ito announce a debate on public expenditure, would almost certainly demand a Supply day. I am meeting her Supply day requests at a fairly rapid rate—roughly once a week.
The right hon. Lady will not have to wait beyond the end of next week for the satisfaction of her demands in respect of a statement on law enforcement, but I.cannot precisely predict the day on which they will be met—except to say that she will have an opportunity to debate this extensively on Thursday.

Sir Michael Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing number of problems to do with human rights that some of us have had a chance to see in Belgrade and Zagreb? Will he find time to discuss those matters, perhaps within the wider context of a foreign affairs debate?

Mr. Newton: I well recognise my hon. Friend's concern and the opportunities that he has with the Inter-Parliamentary Union to observe these matters at first hand—and to express his own well-known concern about them. I cannot give him a specific undertaking for a debate of the kind that he suggests, but I shall bear his request in mind.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House has already referred to the pressure on the time of the House. May we have an early statement arising out of my question last week about the reform of the scrutiny of legislation for Northern Ireland? We need proper scrutiny, not a charade.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courteous letter, following our misunderstanding arising out of last week's question. I am afraid that I cannot give him the promise he seeks; but the debate that is about to take place would seem to offer him the chance to raise the points about which he is concerned.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: Would my right hon. Friend consider holding a further debate on the financing of political parties? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is a great advocate of the principle of the right to reply—indeed, he introduced a Bill for that very purpose? Given the unsubstantiated charge that he made in Tuesday's debate, would it not be right to


hold another debate to give Ministers a chance to reply to what was a cowardly charge, because it was made when the President of the Board of Trade was recovering from a heart attack?

Mr. Newton: I am not quite sure whether I would like to make again the speech that I made on Tuesday evening—I do not know how the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) would feel about making hers again. I certainly take my hon. Friend's point, however. In the course of that debate, I observed, probably in more vigorous language, that I found it rather strange that the hon. Member for Hammersmith should repeat his allegations in the face of the clear statement by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, which I read out no less than twice in the course of the debate.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In requesting an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for National Heritage, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to information that I have received from a highly reliable source to the effect that it has been decided to abolish "News at Ten" and replace it with an ITN news bulletin at 6.30 pm? That would mean no news on the ITV network after 6.30 pm, and no news on the commercial network after 7 pm. That in turn will mean that the ITV network will not be fulfilling its national responsibilities. It is essential that we have a statement from the Government on this matter.

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly put that suggestion to the Secretary of State for National Heritage, but that is not to be taken as my assent to the proposition. My initial reaction is that this is primarily a matter for the broadcasters, not for the Secretary of State. They should determine at what times the news is broadcast.

Mr. Peter Luff: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has received the same sort of vigorous representations as I received on Saturday in my constituency surgery from my local myalgic encephalomyelitis support group. If he has, he will understand why I attach such importance to an urgent debate in the House on that subject. ME sufferers are concerned about the detailed implications of the current benefits review and about some of the attitudes displayed by the Department of Health. Such a debate would do a great deal to reassure a large group of people about the importance that the House attaches to their problems.

Mr. Newton: I have not recently had representations of that sort, but as a constituency Member and based on my long ministerial experience in health and social security, I am certainly aware of the anxieties to which my hon. Friend refers. He will probably know that a task force is being set up, with representatives from the Royal College of General Practitioners, ME voluntary organisations and the Department of Health, with a view to looking at the existing literature and research and to disseminating information to health care professionals in a way that we hope will significantly aid the treatment and care of people suffering from ME.
People suffering from ME, in the same way as those suffering from any other disease with disabling effects, would be entitled to benefit if it is shown that they are incapable of work.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to decisions made last week in the Paris Commission by the committee dealing with European environmental issues? Having learned that the atmospheric discharge of nuclear toxics would be increased by 1,100 per cent. and that maritime discharges would increase by 900 per cent., the committee passed a resolution asking the British Government to re-examine the introduction and commissioning of the THORP plant at Sellafield, and to arrange an independent inquiry on the real environmental effects. Moreover, the Nuclear Information Centre in Tokyo has said that the permitted level of discharge in the British Isles is five times the level permitted in Japan.
Given that this environmental problem affects all of us, may we have a general debate on the effects of the nuclear industry on the environment?

Mr. Newton: I assume that the hon. Gentleman was present during my statement. The first debate that I announced—for next Monday, which is an Opposition day—will deal with precisely that subject:
the economic, environmental and proliferation implications
of bringing THORP into operation. That should give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity he seeks.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we can have a debate on defence immediately after the publication of the White Paper, which is imminent? Is he aware that last week's defence debate was considerably delayed? Is he further aware that a debate next week would give hon. Members from the south-west an opportunity to point out that they have always supported the nuclear deterrent, and the Trident programme in particular?
It might also give our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence an opportunity to tell the House whether he was influenced by the fact, and by the corresponding fact that most of those lobbying for Rosyth from Scottish constituencies have been opposed to the Trident programme in the past?

Mr. Newton: I imagine that a number of people have observed the facts cited by my hon. Friend in the second part of his question. As for the first part, he will know that it is normal practice for the Select Committee on Defence to have an opportunity to study and report on the defence estimates before they are debated. That must obviously be an influential factor in the determination of the timing of such a debate.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement and an apology next week from the Secretary of State for Education, who has persistently accused Labour-controlled local authorities of preventing fair discussion of any opt-out proposals? May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 2209?
[That this House condemns the Chairman of Governors at Wibsey First School in Bradford for failing to ensure that all governors were notified of a meeting to discuss opting out, failing to ensure, as promised, that the teachers, who voted by 18 to two against, would have their views conveyed to parents, failing to comply with the 1988 Act by providing a true and accurate record of those eligible to vote when requested to do so by a parent-governor, censoring the material of the opposition group of parents and governors, changing the date of voting so that a meeting to discuss the


issue was to be held after ballot papers were issued rather than before, as had been agreed; condemns this record of cheating and chicanery which denies the proper conduct of the democratic process; and calls on the Secretary of State for Education to repudiate the actions of the Conservative Chair of Governors.]
As the motion explains, the Conservative chairman of Wibsey First school, in my constituency, has engaged in considerable chicanery by changing the times of meetings and preventing teachers who voted 18 : 2 against opting out from conveying their views to parents. He has also engaged in a host of other activities designed to destroy the democratic process.
It is time that the Secretary of State accepted that any chicanery comes from the Conservatives involved, not from members of the Labour party, who are trying to present a fair case. That is not happening in Wibsey First school.

Mr. Newton: Let me leave the politics aside and deal with the practicalities. The arrangements for balloting parents on such matters are the responsibility of the governing body of the school; in those circumstances, it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to comment. However, it is open to those who have complaints—as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) clearly has—to write to the Department setting out the grounds for those complaints, which will then be considered.

Mr. Rod Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the light of Tuesday's debate,

when Labour Members—if I may paraphrase—made silly buggers of themselves, many Conservative Members wish that every day was an Opposition day? Does he agree, however, that, given the importance of the issues that might have been debated on Tuesday, fewer days should now be allocated to Labour Members, until they learn to behave like a responsible Opposition?

Mr. Newton: I suppose that half of me finds that an attractive suggestion, but the other half has not quite reached the stage of wanting to blow up the usual channels.

Madam Speaker: I remind the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) of "Erskine May's" words:
Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.

Mr. David Winnick: As regards Monday's debate on Members' interests, would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for the letters that were written by Conservative Members to the Attorney-General about Mr. Nadir's case to be put in the Library? Would it not be appropriate for us to see precisely why Conservative Members with no constituency interest wrote to the Attorney-General, instead of just reading about the matter in the newspapers from time to time?

Mr. Newton: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the motion on Monday is concerned with proposals from the Select Committee for clarifying the rules for the Register. I suggest that it will he best if the debate is confined to that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We are now going to move on.

Mr. George Foulkes: In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence earlier today, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision today by the Cabinet on the Trident refit contract and its adverse effect on the economy of Scotland.
First, it is clear from the reaction to the statement that there is widespread concern in the House that the decision made is contrary to previous undertakings by Defence Ministers that the Trident refit would go to Rosyth. Secondly, there is a need for the Government to give further details of how the decision was arrived at, to explain the economic and financial justification for the decision, and to outline what action is to be taken to protect the interests of the workers whose jobs are now threatened. Finally, there is a need for the House to consider how today's decision will jeopardise the security and defence of the country.
Rosyth is the biggest single industrial employer in Scotland, and its subcontractors and suppliers employ many thousands more. The Government have a duty to explain and defend their decision to the House, and to do so today.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision today by the Cabinet on the Trudent refit and its effect upon the Scottish economy.
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Member is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House? I require 40 Members standing.
The motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until 7 o'clock tonight, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.

The leave of the House having been given, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until 7 o'clock this day.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that it would be helpful and for the convenience of the House if, in the light of your decision, I said that the Government would not, in these circumstances, proceed with the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993—that is, the second item of Northern Ireland business—this evening.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to thank the Leader of the House for that statement.

Madam Speaker: That is most helpful. We should now make progress.

Points of Order

Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am very much aware of the effect that the recent announcements have on people in Scotland, but are you aware that, in two or three days, the shipyard of Cammell Laird—a Scottish name—in Birkenhead is to close? That has a significant effect on the economy of Merseyside, and I put this hypothetical question: if I asked for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, would you grant it?

Madam Speaker: The question may be hypothetical, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I take these matters very seriously. He may have raised that point in some joviality, but I take such things seriously, and I will consider any Standing Order No. 20 application that he puts to me.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Reported in the newspapers today is a copy of a letter sent by a Member of Parliament to an officer of the Crown. I need not say which letter it is, because all know about it. What concerns me gravely is that this letter has been intercepted and leaked. It can have been leaked only by the sender, the receiver, or a firm of accountants that carried out a raid on a certain gentleman's house. That must be a breach of privilege. I ask you, as the Speaker of this House, to set in motion inquiries to ascertain who leaked and who——

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman mentioned privilege. If he thinks that this is a matter of privilege, he must write to me, not raise it on the Floor of the House. I have not seen the letter. I know nothing about it. I shall look at his letter when it comes to me.

BILL PRESENTED

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (WALES)

Mr. Barry Jones, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Dr. John Marek, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Roy Hughes and Mr. Martyn Jones, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Wales, discrimination against disabled persons on the grounds of their disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONG KONG)

That the draft Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[ Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Act 1974

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
This draft order renews for another 12 months the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, by which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. It has become customary over the years to give the House an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the previous year and it is my intention to do the same again this afternoon.
Last year in the equivalent debate I said that I was committed to achieving the goal of a peaceful, just and prosperous way of life for all the people of Northern Ireland. While there has been progress, despite many factors pulling in the opposite direction, I must of course acknowledge with regret that peace, justice and prosperity do not as yet prevail for all in Northern Ireland.
Violence, injustice and loss continue to be inflicted by evil means and by evil people. They have struck no less viciously than elsewhere at communities where the people have long lived together in peaceful harmony and prosperity. I think of Coleraine, among others. The House shares the anger, the grief and the resolution of the victims, and of all the other victims and their families.
The ruthless use of violence for political ends remains the most malign and dangerous obstacle in our path. The threat to everybody's safety and security remains serious from terrorists at both extremes. The House will recall many of the 75 brutal murders by terrorists in Northern Ireland last year, and many of the 34 that have been perpetrated since the beginning of this year. It will also recall the bomb attacks on commercial and domestic property, such as Belvoir Park, Bangor and more recently Belfast, Portadown, Magherafelt and Newry. It will recall. too, the attacks on security force bases. There have been, for example, three mortar attacks on the Crossmaglen police station and patrol base this year.
It is difficult to do justice to the steadfastness of the men and women of the RUC, and of the forces who support them. It is beyond praise, as the whole House will agree. It is well matched by the qualities of the public, including the business community, of Northern Ireland as a whole.
We owe it to the security forces not to minimise or play down, let alone overlook, the significant successes that they have scored in the past year against the terrorists. We owe it to the general public, too. Throughout the past year, the security forces have had every support and strong, courageous leadership from my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I pay a warm and most grateful tribute to his work as a colleague over the past 14 months.
Last year, 405 people were charged with terrorist-related offences, including 101 with murder and attempted murder. This year, as at 13 June, 168 people had been charged with such offences. Important finds of firearms, ammunition, explosives and other terrorist equipment continue to be made. In addition, determined inroads have

been made upon the sources of terrorist finance, assisted by new legislation. Other considerable successes have been achieved which get scant publicity. The security forces have worked tirelessly to disrupt and prevent terrorist operations, and I will give some examples.
Since the beginning of March, four bombs in transit containing over 300 kgs of explosives have been intercepted, resulting in several arrests. Over 6,600 kgs of fertiliser, used in the manufacture of explosives, have been recovered. A range of other weaponry has been seized and several other murderous attacks by paramilitaries on both sides have been foiled, with the capture of Republican and Loyalist gunmen en route to commit murder. Those are some of the successes.
Both the numerical level and the equipment of the security forces are kept under careful review. So, too, is the adequacy of the criminal law by which those guilty of terrorist offences may be brought to justice and judicially punished. It is important to recall the recent words of Sir Hugh Annesley, the Chief Constable of the RUC, who said:
When a terrorist outrage occurs there is often a reaction suggesting that the handcuffs should be taken off the police and the army: that our hands should be untied from behind our backs. There are no restraints on the security forces, save those imposed by law and by the very nature of our democratic society. There is no political restraint stopping us from doing our duty or doing our best.
I assure the House that the Government remain unrelenting in their commitment to the defeat of the terrorists. That is our highest priority. I find inspiring the staunchness and resilience of those who resist their cruel attacks, and our commitment to their defeat is no less implacable.

Mr. David Winnick: There may he a degree of pessimism about how far terrorism can be defeated in the Northern Ireland context, bearing in mind how long it has been going on, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, although the terrorist campaign—I speak principally of the Provisional IRA—has been going on for nearly four times the length of the last world war, there is not the slightest evidence of the terrorists achieving their objective? Does he further agree that neither in the House nor in the country is there the slightest wish to give up the campaign against terrorism or to give in to the bombers?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I endorse every word that the hon. Gentleman said, and it cannot be said too often or too widely. There are many who recognise the truth of those words in the ranks of those who have perpetrated such crimes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and for what he consistently says in that sense.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to be in a position to respond to the proposals for changes in the law suggested by the Chief Constable?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Chief Constable has proposed certain changes in the law, some of which are well known, as representing his opinion. They call for careful and balanced consideration. It is necessary to ensure that all legal weapons are available to the security forces.
On the other hand, it is necessary to ensure that the state of the criminal law is not such as to represent in reasonable people's minds too draconian a body of law, so


that support for the security forces is thereby lost—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter, and I do not think many people think it is a laughing matter. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not laugh often. It is a pity that he laughted then.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Regarding the Chief Constable's recommendations, is it not essential for the Secretary of State, as the representative of the Government in Northern Ireland and as an eminent legal person, to state clearly that there cannot be any circumstances in which the core of the Chief Constable's request—that is, the shifting of the onus of proof from the state to the accused—can be met? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is in the interest of the law that such a statement should be made publicly and as soon as possible to the Chief Constable?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am being tempted to deal bit by bit, as the occasion arises and on invitations of that kind, with the serious and considered representations made publicly by the Chief Constable. I must resist that temptation.

Mr. David Trimble: rose—

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have given way three times on the trot. I hope that hon. Members will now permit me to continue with my speech.
I come to the performance of the economy of Northern Ireland in the last year, and the House may take heart from that performance. It is becoming recognised that the Province has held up remarkably well under adverse worldwide economic conditions. Seasonally adjusted unemployment in May was down 1,100 on the previous month, the fifth fall recorded in the last six months. Although the total, at 104,500, or 13·9 per cent. of the work force, is still far too high, it has come a long way from the peak of 17·6 per cent. in 1986, and is significantly lower than the rate of unemployment in the Irish Republic, where it is 16·9 per cent.
Output levels in Northern Ireland have risen by 3 to 4 per cent. in the past year, which compares favourably with the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole, of about I per cent. Further encouragement can be drawn from the results of recent surveys of the local business community, where high levels of business confidence and improving market performance are reported. Those indicators provide evidence of the resilience of the Northern Ireland economy and of those who create wealth and employment in it. I am confident that its performance will continue to improve as the national recovery gathers greater momentum.
The Government's strategy of working in partnership with business to help improve its competitiveness will reinforce the progress made last year. Exemplifying that progress, I point to the record of the Industrial Development Board. The IDB had a very successful year. Ten new projects have been attracted by way of inward investment, bringing new products and technology to Northern Ireland and offering about 2,000 jobs. The high level of demand for the IDB's export services was another encouraging feature. Export orders worth £120 million were reported by companies using the IDB's export marketing services.
I report also the continuing development of a number of joint initiatives between the IDB and its counterpart in

the Republic, the Irish Trade Board. Their purpose has been to promote the increased use of source materials obtained from within the island of Ireland and the joint marketing of Irish products overseas.
A good example of that was the successful exhibition mounted by the Irish Trade Board and the IDB in Chicago earlier this month, in which 25 Northern Ireland companies participated. I find that the best ambassadors for Northern Ireland as a base for investment from overseas are those who have already been encourged by the IDB and others to take the plunge. Once they have done that, they are the best ambassadors to those who are hesitating about whether to do the same, and they say, "Send them to us. We will tell them about it." I pay great tribute to the IDB.
There have also been impressive achievements on the small business front, for which the local enterprise development unit—LEDU—is responsible. Those have included a record number of new business start-ups, a 4 per cent. net rise in employment among LEDU's companies, representing about 1,000 jobs, and a record number of LEDU companies expanding and transferring to the IDB. A good contribution continues to be made by the Training and Employment Agency to the overall economic strategy to increase company competitiveness.
Similarly, in its first year of operation, the industrial research and technology unit has successfully delivered almost £20 million of European Community support for Northern Ireland made available under the Stride, Prisma and Framework programmes. That has significantly strengthened the region's technological infrastructure. It has improved those quality testing services that are vital for industrial exports, and it has stimulated commercial networking between Northern Ireland companies and academic institutions and their European Community counterparts.
Tourism is an important topic. The highest ever number of visitors was achieved in 1992, the fourth successive record-breaking year, when almost 1·3 million visitors came to Northern Ireland. Individually, just as is the case with corporate visitors, their overriding impression of surprise is how normal the place is. They expect often to step off the aeroplane into a kind of Clint Eastwood scenario. They are astonished by how normal life is in Northern Ireland and by how unusually attractive it is in many respects.
The Government's continued commitment to encouraging the growth of tourism is demonstrated by the increase in resources made available to the Northern Ireland tourist board this year—£12 million in total, which is almost £5 million more than only two years ago.
In addition to our support for the development of a desirable tourism infrastructure, the European regional development fund, influenced by the tourist board, has provided over £35 million in the period 1990 to 1993, and that in turn generated investments worth £51 million. I am an admirer of NITB, especially of its television advertisements, and I am one of a growing number.
I report with some pride the completion of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Electricity plc, the transmission, distribution and supply business, was successfully floated on the stock exchange on Monday 21 June. The sale of the Province's four power stations to three independent


private generating companies was accomplished in early 1992. A total sum of £700 million has been realised for the public purse.
One of the Government's main aims in privatising NIE was to broaden and deepen share ownership. In the event, in common with previous privatisations, the flotation of NIE proved very popular. Two thirds of the shares have been taken up by private investors. I was particularly pleased that so many Northern Ireland people and employees of NIE decided to invest in the company. Over 40 per cent. of the shares available to the general public have been allocated to Northern Ireland citizens, some 140,000 of them. Just as pleasing is the fact that almost 50 per cent. of NIE employees applied for and received shares, and therefore gained a direct stake in their company and its future development. That is a demonstration of their confidence not only in the company but in the future of Northern Ireland. All that is a very satisfactory outcome in relation to our original objective. Its success is a great tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and to his official and professional advisers.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Secretary of State has made great play of the benefits that the privatisation of electricity has provided for the investors, but he has not referred to the consumer. It is forecast that in the near future electricity prices in Northern Ireland will rise by 15 per cent. over the rate of inflation on a base that is already in excess of the rest of the United Kingdom. How does he justify that when energy costs for industry are so high and the ordinary consumer will have to pay a high price for electricity in addition to the VAT to be imposed next year of 8 per cent., and subsequently 17·5 per cent?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows that up to 70 per cent. of electricity generated by NIE is produced by plant that uses oil. If the value of the pound comes down, the price of oil goes up. That is the principal reason for the increases in electricity to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. I am glad that I have been able to ensure that there will be no rise in excess of single figures—that is 9 per cent.—this year and that the transitional arrangements shall extend across the range of industrial users, and there are 4,000 of them.
I am sure that the consumers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will have benefited—I am sure that they will say that it is a good thing—from the special incentives for buying the shares. There are advantages for them.
For consumers there are wider benefits yet resulting from the privatisation. The industry has been restructured in the interests of promoting competition both in generation and supply. The planned development of the pipeline, and an electricity interconnector with Great Britain, promise, in time, improved fuel diversity and increased competition. They are attracting some £125 million of European Community support. The establishment of an office of electricity regulation, staffed by professionals and entirely independent, has further strengthened consumer rights in relation to electricity supply.
I believe that the House will welcome these indicators of increased economic activity. I have every confidence that,

as the national economic recovery continues to take hold, Northern Ireland is well placed to take advantage of growth opportunities, and that it will seize that advantage.
Nothing could be less welcome than this to those who have an interest in fostering instability. They hate to see more jobs and do their best to destroy them. Along with constitutional politicians of every party, the Government are in the business of encouraging their creation, preservation and all the resulting blessings of productive lives. So, as in previous years, we have gone on tackling adverse conditions in those areas characterised by disproportionate disadvantage and inequality in Northern Ireland. The "Making Belfast work" initiative continues to be at the heart of that campaign. This year a further £24 million has been made available for it and put to good use. That will take the total allocation to date to over £124 million. Those funds are additional to the extensive resources which Departments continue to put into these areas through their normal mainline programmes. They have been put to good use. The areas concerned are by no means confined to Catholic areas.
Similarly we have gone on giving high priority to the "Targeting social need" initiative. TSN is the third public expenditure priority in Northern Ireland, coming next only to our commitment to law and order and to strengthening the economy.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the Republic for the number of Bosnian refugees that it has accepted? Bearing in mind his remarks about the normality of everyday life in Northern Ireland, and the number of visitors to the Province, is he ready to accept a number of refugees from Bosnia into Northern Ireland so that they may enjoy the normal life and the care which I am sure they would receive from both communities?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am afraid that I am not familiar with the Republic's record. However, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will operate the same immigration and asylum laws and regulations as the rest of the United Kingdom. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if refugees were to be received there they would he met with the greatest care and kindness.
Through TSN, Government policies and programmes are targeted more sharply at the areas and people in greatest need. It is central to the TSN initiative that it is directed at need wherever it exists. It is not, as some have suggested, directed at one side of the community but to both Catholic and Protestant communities. Disproportionate need and disadvantage create the same malignities wherever they are to he found. Accordingly, wherever they are to be found, it is our purpose to eliminate them.
Success here will bear directly upon the efforts so many have been making in the past year to encourage better community relations. I pay tribute to the innumerable individuals and organizations—sometimes tiny organizations—who at local level have committed themselves to this work. I hope and believe that they find themselves well supported by the Government. This work continues to expand, reflecting a growing desire within the community itself for peace and an end to all violence.

Rev. Martin Smyth: How can the voluntary agencies continue to serve the sectors of real need when there have been decisive cuts? For example, in


the Eastern hoard area the cutbacks are injuring the physically handicapped in the Island centre in east Belfast; they are affecting the Derryvolgie centre for those with hearing and vision deficiencies and other places. Under the principle of care in the community we are supposed to be moving from hospital provision to community provision.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: If the hon. Gentleman gives me particulars of what he has described, I should be happy to deal with them. As is well known, the boards are responsible for the expenditure of their allocated sums. What the hon. Gentleman has described is by no means a consistent picture. Only last week I went to the Glenveagh special school. The hon. Gentleman was there. He heard that school described as a world leader—not just a national or European leader—and I am confident that that is right. I was delighted by the scale of the premises and the proper abundance of equipment available for those who are perhaps in most need. That needs to be recognised. I pay tribute to those who have worked in that sector.
Despite the continuing violence in Northern Ireland, there is clear evidence that positive changes are taking place in the relationships between the two main traditions. Recent British social attitudes surveys have indicated that people are much more inclined than formerly to support programmes aimed at improving community relations, and that these are achieving some success. Over the past four years we have devoted around £20 million to this kind of programme alone.

Sir James Kilfedder: Will the Secretary of State comment on the possibility of renewing talks on political progress? Has he made any decision about what form those talks should take, and does he intend to issue guidelines or make Government proposals on areas where no agreement has been reached in recent talks?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to come to that in a moment or two. I have a slot reserved with which I intend to finish.
I turn finally, I note, to developments on the political front.[Laughter.] In the preceding weeks before my addressing the House last year, there had been intensive discussions between the British Government and the four main Northern Ireland parties on what has come to be known as strand 1. We were discussing the relationships between the people of Northern Ireland, including the relationships between any new institutions and the Westminster Parliament.
Subsequently, on 6 July last year, the Irish Government joined the discussions, with the consent of all the participants. Thus enlarged, the participants moved on to consider issues in strand 2: relationships among the peole of Ireland. On 28 July, the two Governments held the opening meeting on the third strand, concerning future relationships between them.
Those talks continued until the summer holiday, resumed in the autumn and closed on 10 November. I told the House the following day that we had not as yet succeeded in our ambitious task of securing an overall settlement—
a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland, and between the peoples of these islands."—[Official Report, 11 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 877.]
I will not reiterate my account to the House at that time. It is enough to say that I was sure that that delicate and arduous process was by no means without significant

achievements to its credit. It was clear that the talks witnessed a substantive and detailed engagement between responsible and representative political leaders on issues of the utmost importance. It was a long, candid but generally harmonious process.
A lot was done to identify what turned out to be common ground between the participants, to enlarge that common ground and to increase the respective understanding of others' positions and their respect for those positions.
Although the talks came to a close, the independent chairman, Sir Ninian Stephen, expressed the view that their objectives remained valid and achievable. The two Governments also agreed that further dialogue was necessary and desirable. The four Northern Ireland parties agreed and undertook to
enter into informal consultations with a view to seeking a way forward".
That is the current state of events. I believe that it is an important phase. It is in a different format from much that went on last year, although it is fair to say that some of the talks, towards the end, took place in a similar format, and very constructive they were. We should perhaps enlarge the areas in which we take counsel, because there is one thing of which I am certain: the people of Northern Ireland, right across the spectrum, expect politicians to talk.
I remain keen to assist the reopening of dialogue to establish how we might build on the advances of the past two years; perhaps I weary some people in my repeated assertions of that. At Downing street on 16 June, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach reaffirmed the desire of the two Governments for further talks. As I said, I have been in contact with the four main Northern Ireland parties.
There are issues that require further and private consideration between us, but my overall aim remains unchanged—to go on developing the common ground and working towards the kind of agreed settlement by which alone a less antagonistic way of living in a divided community may be achieved. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland hope for and expect no less.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: We are debating the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order. How interim is interim? Nineteen years is a long time to be described as "interim". When does the Secretary of State envisage a new constitutional settlement being reached, embracing the island of Ireland and a new relationship between the island of Ireland and Great Britain?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have much sympathy with the frustration that is implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question. Nineteen years is a very long time—too long. I cannot give him the answer. That lies principally with the people of Northern Ireland, but it is our duty to give what help we can.
If we can achieve that accommodation, part of which the hon. Gentleman described in his last few words, it will hasten the day, to which I ardently look forward, when conditions in Northern Ireland are such that direct rule can be brought to an end. It is bad for Northern Ireland that opportunities for democratically sustained political responsibility are so limited. I want to see them greatly enlarged and my own immediate responsibilities accordingly diminished. There is, in my experience, a very


strong desire across the community to achieve through political discussions a widely agreed foundation for such a reform, and not only for that reason either.
Any such reform, in order to survive, would have to be widely agreed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I, accordingly, will continue to help in this by all means that seem likely to be fruitful. The potential prize is too great by far to make it permissible to be discouraged, let alone deterred. Regrettably, however, a lot more progress must yet be made before direct rule will no longer be needed in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
In the meantime—in the interim—I submit that direct rule must continue. As long as it does, we shall go on doing our best, with the invaluable help of dedicated officials here and in Northern Ireland, to provide good and, we hope, progressively better government for all the people of Northern Ireland. In that spirit, I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: At the outset, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I disagreed with many of his policies and with some of his judgments on Northern Ireland, but he has always been dedicated to Northern Ireland, which is perhaps not the most popular issue in the House, and I know that on becoming a Northern Ireland Minister he felt that he had fulfilled his ambition to serve in Northern Ireland. I therefore regret the circumstances which brought about his decision to resign. I also pay tribute to the work that he did before becoming a Minister and to his dedication to Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland through his work for the inter-parliamentary tier, of which he has been a dedicated and keen supporter.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as someone who has repeatedly called for the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) to resign—and I am pleased that he has done so—I have made it clear that, although I am sure that I would have been strongly opposed to his ministerial work in any other Department, I felt that he was doing a good job at the Northern Ireland Office, as he had done in his other work on Northern Ireland? I therefore share my hon. Friend's sentiments, although I believe that in all the circumstances it was right for the hon. Gentleman to resign and that if he had not done so he should have been sacked.

Mr. McNamara: In the 17th century, a Northern Ireland Minister ended up on the block and said, "Put not your trust in princes". On this occasion, it must be "Put not your trust in Majors". Although I would not go overboard in support of the policies pursued by the hon. Member for East Hampshire, I pay tribute to his dedication to Northern Ireland, to which many more hon. Members should pay attention.
I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the work of the security forces in Northern Ireland in impartially upholding the rule of law. We should recognise that they have a difficult task to carry out in very trying circumstances. The Secretary of State paid tribute to the civil servants who have been involved in the period of direct rule and to the many people of the voluntary

organisations in Northern Ireland who play an invaluable role through the services that they give to all sections of the community.
Each year, we begin this debate with a ritualistic incantation deploring the continuing need for direct rule and expressing the sincere desire that this will be the last year that the renewal order is debated by the House. The Labour party continues to adhere to such sentiments, but mere recitation of a desire to achieve settlement is not sufficient. The Labour party has consistently supported the talks process. However, we recognise that the prospects of restarting the talks in the immediate future are not good. The aftermath of the local government election results has seen further entrenchment of positions, and the role of the Secretary of State and the Government leaves much to be desired.
The Democratic Unionist party has reiterated its preconditions for a return to the negotiating table. These include an end to the Hume-Adams talks and repeal of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. What the Democratic Unionist party fails to recognise is that the Irish Government can amend the Irish constitution only after a referendum of the citizens of the Republic. It is hard to imagine that Irish citizens would accept amendments to their constitution except as part of an overall settlement and, in particular, unless there were widespread support among Northern nationalists for such changes. The Ulster Unionist party now appears to be seeking to unravel the agreed structure and principles upon which the talks process has been based in the past. Such a development, I believe, would be short sighted and would represent a step backward.
What is more important is that we still have no clear idea about what the Secretary of State's proposals will be. We have had reassurances—far from convincing—that there will be no move away from the three-strand structure and the principle that nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed. However, the Secretary of State's speech in Liverpool appeared to indicate that he would be in favour of an internal settlement with limited North-South institutions. There can, however, be no settlement that does not recognise the three relevant interlocking relationships, to which the Secretary of State paid attention today: the relationship between the two communities in Northern Ireland. the relationship between the North and the South of Ireland, and the relationship between Britain and Ireland. To ignore any one of these relationships, or to downplay one at the expense of another, would represent a failure to recognise—indeed, to understand—the underlying causes of the conflict.

Mr. Peter Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about the importance of the interlocking relationships between what are, essentially, the three strands of the former talks process, why was he so much in favour of proceeding with the Anglo-Irish agreement, which failed to deal with all those relationships at the same time and marginalised the Unionist community?

Mr. McNamara: For the very reason that these talks, as I understand them, seek on behalf of the Unionist and Nationalist parties to replace the Anglo-Irish agreement


with something greater, more permanent and more acceptable to all the people involved. I understand that to be the basis upon which the talks have taken place.
The 1991 census returns clearly demonstrate the widening gulf between the communities in Northern Ireland. Approximately half the population live in areas that are more than 90 per cent. Protestant or more than 90 per cent. Catholic. Only 7 per cent. live in areas with roughly equal proportions of both religions. Even in wards that appear to be mixed, the two communities are often separated by so-called peace lines. This segregation is a reflection of the polarisation of the two communities and serves only to reinforce prejudices and the communal divide. The new census evidence is a dramatic demonstration of the failure of direct rule. Direct rule has failed to foster links, understanding and trust between the two communities.
The level of violence remains depressingly high, although we always welcome the successes of the security forces, and a sense of alienation from the political process is still tangible. The status quo has hopelessly failed the peoples of Ireland. It has failed to tackle the underlying causes of the present conflict. Direct rule has simply exacerbated the tensions and heightened the sense of desperation and alienation felt by the minority population and, increasingly, by members of the majority population. Not a great deal has been done to alleviate the siege mentality of many in the Unionist community. Direct rule in no way recognises that Ireland is the site not just of one minority community but of two, and not just of one majority community but of two—first, the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland, and the Protestant minority in the island of Ireland; secondly, the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland, and the Catholic majority in the island of Ireland.
In addition, the census shows that the percentage of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland has significantly increased, standing now at approximately 43 per cent. A majority in favour of a united Ireland is therefore no longer a distant dream, but a distinct possibility. Whether or not one believes that there will be a Catholic majority in 10, 20 or even 30 years' time, the fact that it is now a possibility makes the need for a just and equitable settlement all the more urgent and makes all the more pressing the need to create durable and acceptable institutions that will encompass and cushion such a demographic and possibly constitutional change.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument very closely. Is he suggesting that every person listed in the census as a Roman Catholic wants a united Ireland? Should not his views take account of what a Roman Catholic priest said recently in Dungannon—that a large number of Roman Catholics want to stay in the United Kingdom?

Mr. McNamara: I accept that that may well be the case. Equally, quite a number of Protestants would be quite happy to be in a united Ireland. But the possibility of more than 50 per cent. of the population wanting to vote in that way cannot be denied. Even if what the hon. Gentleman has said about the voting intentions of Catholics is correct, that does not remove the need to have in Northern Ireland institutions that are acceptable to both communities, recognise the traditions and cultures of both and treat them with equality. If there were a change in the

constitutional position, such institutions would cushion and encompass it. Whatever the circumstances, the argument stands.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned census percentages. Is he aware that, in the case of Protestants, only members of the main churches were counted? People belonging to, say, the Free Presbyterian and Baptist churches were not included. That will have made a considerable difference to the figures.

Mr. McNamara: I do not think that that is the case. However, if we are to bandy statistics about, we should do so elsewhere to avoid taking up a considerable amount of time in the Chamber. The perceived proportions of 57 per cent. Protestant and 43 per cent. Catholic are generally accepted as being the result of the census. That is the way it is.
It would be no more desirable to have a discontented Unionist minority in a united Republic of Ireland than it is now to have a discontented nationalist minority in Northern Ireland. A way forward must be found which recognises these realities and seeks to create certainty and institutions for stability. Safeguards must be put in place to protect the rights and cultures of all traditions in the island of Ireland. Direct rule has predictably failed on all those counts, despite the good will of the House of Commons and of successive Governments.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: As a result of Madam Speaker's decision to grant an emergency debate, we have less than two hours in which to conclude this one. At least six hon. Members, including representatives of five other parties, want to take part. I should be happy to continue to give way were it not for the fact that it would be at the expense of other people. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make his point, well and good, but he is certainly the last person to whom I shall give way.

Mr. Thurnham: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not heard him welcome the successful privatisation of the electricity undertaking in Northern Ireland. Is that not an example of how to give the people of Northern Ireland a stake in their economy? It is an example of the Government's enterprise policies in Northern Ireland, of which I have had personal experience. It is surely through the prosperity of such enterprises that the people of Northern Ireland can look forward to the happy and successful future that they so richly deserve, rather than the terrorism to which they have been subjected.

Mr. McNamara: It would have been wiser not to give way. The hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully to the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who pointed out the dangerous effects of the great increase in electricity prices on the standard of living of the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State mentioned the number of people who had taken up shares and he used the statement to answer my hon. Friend, but the hon. Gentleman should know that for every person in my hon. Friend's constituency who took up shares nine did not and they will bear the brunt of the increase in prices caused by the Government's ideology and dogma in these matters.
Any solution to the Northern Ireland conflict must take into account the interrelated causes of the conflict. The first is the deep-seated distrust which has developed between the two communities and which is enforced by deeply entrenched religious and cultural differences. The second cause is the competing national aspirations of the peoples of Northern Ireland. Majorities in both communities sincerely believe that, for principled and historic reasons, they should belong to different nation states, and those beliefs are reflected in the claims of their respective states to sovereignty over the region.
The third is the inequality—cultural and economic—between the two communities in Northern Ireland, which still persists and breeds understandable resentment and alienation. The fourth is the effect of decades of political violence and repression, and the bitterness and hatred that they have engendered. The fifth is the failure of the security forces and the judicial system to secure legitimacy in the eyes of a large section of the population.
As I suggested in the recent emergency powers debate, the Government should investigate the possibility of developing a new system of policing which would take account of the fact that Northern Ireland is a divided community. Ninety two per cent. of the regular constabulary and 94 per cent. of the full-time reserve are drawn from one section of the community, while almost 100 per cent. of those in the Royal Irish Regiment recruited locally for service in Northern Ireland are from the Unionist community. In addition, 93 per cent. of those working in the prison service are from the Unionist community. They are the facts which must be tackled. It is only through a new and imaginative approach and by working to end the disparities in representation that we shall secure widespread acceptance for the forces of law and order.
Any solution to the Northern Ireland conflict must also take into account the fact that Northern Ireland is the site of contested sovereignty claims by two nation states. Under section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, as modified by the Ireland Act 1948 and the Northern Ireland Constitution Acts, the United Kingdom claims unqualified sovereignty over Northern Ireland, while under articles 2 and 3 of its constitution the Republic of Ireland claims Northern Ireland as part of its national territory. Those competing claims must be recognised and resolved because they reflect the national aspirations of two sections of the community in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is the only region within the United Kingdom that the Government formally state—in an international treaty—that they would allow to secede, possibly even "with pleasure", if the majority so wished. In November 1990, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), declared:
The British Government has no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland".
In November 1992, the present Secretary of State went still further, asserting that the
British Government is not guided by any blue print or master plan leading to some pre-selected outcome of our choice".
Those statements were positive steps forward, but we are worried that recent statements by the Secretary of State appear to contradict the policy of declared neutrality.
The Secretary of State still claims that the Government have set no agenda of their own, but in his Liverpool speech he ruled out the possibility of a united Ireland for the foreseeable future and the possibility of simple majority rule. He firmly ruled out joint authority. He also minimised the role of the Republic in the talks process and in the future of Northern Ireland.
In his speech to the Northern Ireland Conservative area council, the Secretary of State fervently supported the electoral integration of Northern Ireland, declaring:
We want to see elected across Northern Ireland as many Conservatives supporting our policies as possible".
He also looked forward to a time when a Conservative Secretary of State could be elected from Northern Ireland. I think that Mr. Lawrence Kennedy has some time to wait.
In his speech to the Hazel Grove Conservative association, the Secretary of State asserted that Northern Ireland
is part of our own country, no less than Scotland, Wales or England".
He went on to argue that that gave the Conservatives "a clear directional signal" as to their "purpose". If that is the basis of Conservative policy in Northern Ireland, it is reasonable for the House to deduce that the Secretary of State's "direction and focus" will lead the talks towards an internal settlement with extremely limited North-South institutions. By no definition is that a neutral agenda.
The Secretary of State has decided to bring forward solely British proposals, despite the fact that the Irish Government are co-sponsors of the talks, which has left the Irish Government with no alternative but to draw up their own proposals. That difference between the co-sponsors of the talks has occurred at the very time when the two Governments need to be seen to be working together as closely as possible in order to resuscitate the talks process.
The Labour party would prefer the parties of the island of Ireland to determine their own future by themselves resolving the differences between the two communities. Ideally, the parties in Ireland should be able to negotiate a settlement, without any external interference, which would gain widespread acceptance throughout the island of Ireland. However, the talks process seems to be in abeyance for the foreseeable future. That is the unfortunate fact.
No one would welcome more than the British Labour party an announcement by the Secretary of State that the talks are to start immediately on the original basis—

Mr. Mallon: If the talks are to resume on the previous basis, it would surely be on a joint invitation from the two Governments who sponsor the talks.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friends will have noted that I made that point obliquely when talking about the British Government's proposals.
No one would welcome more than the British Labour party an announcement from the Secretary of State that the talks are to start immediately on the original basis. As that is unlikely to happen, however, it is for the British and Irish Governments, working within the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to recognise the responsibility that they share. It is time for both Governments to reinvigorate and deepen their co-operation within that agreement.
The two Governments should seek to make whatever progress is possible and seek ways to share responsibility and ensure that the needs of the peoples of Northern


Ireland for security, equality and justice can be met. It is imperative that a lasting and peaceful solution is found which will recognise the integrity and aspirations of both traditions within the island of Ireland and which will establish stable, legitimate and democratic institutions.
If the parties are not able to talk together, in renewing this order for direct rule there is an increasing responsibility on both Governments—the Government of the Republic and of the United Kingdom—to resolve their differences and to establish new institutions which will win the respect of the peoples of Northern Ireland and of the peoples of the whole of the island of Ireland.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shudder to think of the nightmare in which we would be embroiled if the Labour party formed the Government of the day and if what we have just heard were the Government's policy, but I shall be ultra-selective in my remarks, for the sake of brevity.
If our deliberations end in a Division—I am not entirely sure whether that will be the case—I shall support the extension order, but I shall do so with regret and misgivings. I shall support it because, in the prevailing circumstances. I believe that it is the only responsible course of action. There is no practical alternative on the agenda. I should support the order with regret, however, because I increasingly feel that we should not be in this position, and that the sooner direct rule ends the better.
Tonight, there is nothing whatever to celebrate. If I calculate correctly, this is the 18th time that an extension order has been laid before the House. The "interim period" has lasted for 19 years. Stormont was prorogued and direct rule introduced 22 years ago. Meanwhile, the power-sharing executive, the constitutional convention and the rolling devolution Assembly have come and gone, and achieved nothing.
Those initiatives were certainly well intentioned—

Sir James Kilfedder: My hon. Friend says that the last Northern Ireland Assembly achieved nothing. That was not the impression given to me or to other members who served in it. I have heard Members of the House and Members of another place say that they greatly appreciated the hard work that was done, which was manifested in the reports that emanated from the assembly. If the Government had not embarked on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but had maintained their support for the Northern Ireland Assembly, we should not now be in the present difficult position.

Mr. Hunter: I accept that correction. I said that, for the sake of brevity, I was accelerating my argument. The point that I was making, albeit too briefly and indistinctly, was that the lack of continuity has meant that nothing permanent has been achieved. Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction.
Hanging in the air is the prospect of renewed inter-party talks—the initiative started by the previous Secretary of State and continued by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State.
Direct rule is unhealthy. The most that can be said for it is that there can be circumstances in which it is the lesser of evils. Nevertheless, it is profoundly unsatisfactory that direct rule has lasted so long, and profoundly disturbing that attempts to establish alternative structures have had

no lasting effect. The fundamental weakness of direct rule, as the Secretary of State has already said, is that it denies locally elected politicians the responsibility of deciding policies for Northern Ireland. For that reason above all others, I believe that it is vital that inter-party talks are not merely resumed but brought to a positive conclusion.
Some of the omens for the inter-party talks may not be very promising. I regret that the Social Democratic and Labour party has not convinced many observers of the genuineness and sincerity of its commitment to the search for an agreement. I also regret the President of the Republic's ill-advised recent visit to Belfast. It has reawakened old suspicions. It was a backward step which has undermined her position as a builder of bridges. Despite welcome improvements, the Irish Government can still demonstrate their good faith by delivering more in the fight against terrorism, and by further clearing the air on articles 2 and 3.
I remain convinced that the three-strand approach is correct, but the greatest emphasis should fall on strand 1, the development of relationships within Northern Ireland, including relationships between any new institutions of government there and the Westminster Parliament. Conversely, least emphasis should he placed on strand 2. I greatly fear that there will be a groundswell of disillusionment and frustration if the political parties do not resume talks and cannot implement an agreement, at least on strand 1.
The process cannot continue indefinitely. My personal perception is that the participants in future inter-party talks have one last chance to put their house in order. If the talks do not start, or if they fail to reach a conclusion, the Government should take a different course of action.
The Westminster Government should then address the task of establishing in Northern Ireland structures and institutions of local government acceptable to the majority of people. In those circumstances, the Government will have to decide between imposing full legislative devolution in the form most acceptable to the majority, and a policy of integration, which would mean governing Ulster as exactly as possible in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that the participants have one last chance before one of those courses of action is taken.
Incidentally, the time has come for the creation of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. The case is overwhelming, and the absence of such a Committee is unacceptable.
I hope that this will be the last time that we have to extend the provisions. Direct rule is unhealthy. It is to be hoped that the inter-party talks will reach a successful conclusion, but if they fail we must take either the course of imposed devolution or the course of integration.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I feel bound to remind the House that, when we embarked on this charade at the same time last year, I said that I did not intend to speak in the debate, on the ground that my commitment to the talks, or the summit, inhibited me somewhat, lest I should inadvertently breach the confidentiality that I considered essential for any possible success in the talks. Unfortunately, it was not long before that confidentiality was breached. Furthermore, the talks were terminated by the decision of the two Governments in November.
The House should be clear about what we are being asked to do in any such initiative, summit or high-wire act—this is relevant to the speech by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). In the first place, the requirement is to find a formula or a structure of government acceptable to every party, with a place therein for every party; but that is only the beginning.
There would have to be continuing adherence to the structure thereafter. If one party withdrew its support, the structure—not the coalition, but the structure—would collapse. In countries abroad that are cursed with proportional representation, when a coalition is brought down by the desertion of a minor party, a new accommodation is cobbled together, and the structure remains. However, the Northern Ireland Office specification, time-honoured by 20 years of experimentation, ensures that, in that event, the structure of government itself collapses utterly.
The consequences were spelt out with brutal clarity by a former Secretary of State, Lord Prior, in 1982, when he received a deputation from my party, led by the then President, the late Sir George Clark. I remember Sir George asking the Secretary of State the simple question, "In the event of an all-party coalition being established, what would happen if, for example, the SDLP withdrew?" With disarming frankness, Lord Prior replied, "Oh, that's simple. I would then dismiss the remaining native Ministers and claw power back to myself."
Our SDLP colleagues, who are sitting on the Bench in front of me, will not mind if I say that Lord Prior made the position clear when he made a broadcast towards the end of the election campaign for his rolling devolution Assembly. In fact, it was a kind of election broadcast, although admittedly Lord Prior did not field any candidates, so it was a tactical exercise without troops.
He assured the SDLP and its electors that, if it boycotted the assembly, as—for reasons that I entirely understand, incidentally—it had suggested it would, he would withhold powers from the three parties that took their seats. At a later stage, it was made clear that any of those three parties could be dispensed with; only the SDLP was indispensable. I am sure that that makes the SDLP feel proud, and I can understand that.
All that happened in 1982. Since then, a more disruptive influence has entered the frame in the shape of the insistance of the Irish Government on something approaching joint authority over Northern Ireland. Such an idea is repugnant not only to the Unionists but to that category mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and those with whom he had exchanges—that element that I call the greater number. I am referring to the Protestants and Roman Catholics, the greater number of all faiths and none, who simply want to remain in the greater unit of the United Kingdom in which the protection of rights and freedoms are taken for granted.
Incidentally, those rights and freedoms are taken for granted by millions of people of Irish descent who are scattered through the United Kingdom. They participate in electing members to represent them in this Parliament, which has evolved over 700 years into a system for the protection of minorities unequalled in the world. The 17 of

us who are sent here for that purpose recognise the perceived authority of the United Kingdom Parliament to ensure that those rights are never eroded.
What I have said is not an argument for stalemate or despair. On the contrary, I hope that it has removed the debris of failed initiatives, so that we can make a positive start on restoring accountable democracy, if necessary by easy and modest instalments.
I was greatly encouraged by a passage in the speech of the Secretary of State on 22 June at Coleraine. He said:
The Secretary of State praised Coleraine councillors, and others throughout the Province, who gave of their time to serve local government and who are willing to work together to improve standards of life in the community.
Sir Patrick said he wanted to see wider responsibilities conferred on local councillors, and added: am sure that even more people of high quality will come forward to serve as councillors if they have more opportunities to get their teeth into issues which are of real concern to the community."
I fully support those words—they are in line with everything I said during the election campaign in May. The 17 of us can, without any difficulty, help the Secretary of State to identify non-controversial powers and some real scope.
I shall take the liberty of quoting a passage of my television election campaign in which I, unlike Lord Prior, had some troops:
My Ulster Unionist candidates are offering you the opportunity to insist on the restoration of accountable democracy to all the citizens of Northern Ireland. As a community we can no longer tolerate the overlapping layers of remote authorities which waste our money, time and resources.
This is no sectarian issue, for there are neither Orange nor Green roads—only good or bad roads—and the had can be mended more efficiently by District Councils. One can think of many more examples.
Hon. Members will remember that, when the Secretary of State announced the termination of the talks in November 1992, I said that I intended to consult any people who wished to talk to me—that is, anyone who accepted the constitutional position and was prepared to act in a democratic way. My aim was endorsed by the 468 delegates at the annual meeting of my party in March. I am happy to report to the House, as I have reported to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, that the response has been encouraging.
A volume of support is emerging for practical steps to restore stability to Northern Ireland. What is encouraging is the willingness of organisations and influential individuals, who perhaps in the past did not play their full part in society in Northern Ireland, not to engage in party politics—that was never required of them—but to use their influence at the provincial level as well as in towns, villages and rural communities to steady nerves and make national decision-making possible.
The Government have a role in confidence-building, mainly in taking steps to bring about real accountable democracy. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights made its contribution a few days ago by pressing Her Majesty's Government to rid Parliament of that degrading Order in Council method of governing Northern Ireland, especially on legislation of fundamental importance to the entire Northern Ireland populace.
Like the Secretary of State, I see many encouraging signs of further movement towards practical co-operation. As he knows, that capacity has always been there. It is evident in the House when the Northern Ireland


representatives put the Great Britain parties to shame in the matter of co-operation, even on matters of bread and butter importance to the people of Great Britain.
Implicit in the remarks of the Secretary of State was a willingness to contribute to that process, and I welcome that. While we share the hope that this farce of renewing an interim measure after two decades will not be necessary in future, we may not see it entirely disappear in the next 12 months. However, I sincerely hope that in the next 12 months we will take modest, practical and constructive steps towards that goal.

Rev. William McCrea: Once again, we have been invited by Her Majesty's Government to support the renewal of the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1993. We continue this debate, as we have done for the past 11 years since I entered the House, under the shadow of the bomb and the bullet. Several of our major town centres have been wrecked recently and we have been left with wastelands by the IRA bombers. Last night, another body lay on the highway in my Mid-Ulster constituency, the victim of an IRA court of republican justice.
It is important that we carefully consider the system of government that we are being asked to rubber stamp tonight. It has been said by some hon. Members that the direct rule that we have endured in the past is not acceptable but that we must simply continue on that road. Others have suggested that we must continue until the Unionists are willing to surrender their Unionism.
We have heard vintage propaganda from Her Majesty's supposedly loyal Opposition Front Bench about how to get rid of part of Her Majesty's territory. Those who know the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) are not surprised by anything he says. Indeed, we would be surprised if he had said anything else because we are used to that sort of propaganda, which would give only succour—whether intentional or not—to the enemies of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the people of Northern Ireland will have to endure the suffering because of some ill-timed statements and ill-thought-out words from Her Majesty's Opposition Front Bench.
The draft order is not a complex document. We all have a copy of it. Indeed, 30 seconds is probably sufficient time to read it. However, the implications of that document are profound and will be deeply felt by the Northern Ireland community. Like the constituents of every other Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, my constituents have to endure a system of government that is a denial of democracy and an insult to our great British standard of democracy.
More than 20 years ago, the people of Northern Ireland were robbed of effective government by the suspension of our Northern Ireland Parliament. In its place, we have a Northern Ireland Office that is accountable to no one in the Northern Ireland community; nor does it have the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, the House ought to appreciate the frustration and, indeed, alienation felt by the majority of Ulster citizens in the face of that unrepresentative system of government. It should also appreciate the inherent dangers that lie in the path of denying democracy to the good, law-abiding people of Northern Ireland.
Not only is the present position ridiculous but it should be condemned. The people of the Province have no say over decisions that affect even the most elementary aspects of daily living. For example, civil servants order the citizens of our part of the United Kingdom as to where to build, how to build and what to build. The elected representatives of the people are often frowned upon as interfering busybodies who have little or no right to question such unfettered dictatorship.
No other part of the United Kingdom would accept that intolerable and deplorable system. I warn the House that such a system undermines respect for the democratic process and for Parliament. The people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, have no effective say in the decision-making process for roads, sewerage, water, schools, health, planning and so on. As if that insult were not sufficient, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland often receive lectures from certain Members of Parliament and others from across the world—every Tom, Dick and Harry who desires to be flown in. The Unionists are lectured that we must sell our Unionist principles and betray the trust of the people who elected us before we can have restored to us a say in the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom.
Many of that collection of what one could call political has-beens, nobodies and know-alls sold their soul out to republican propaganda. They care little about democracy or the rights of suffering people such as my constituents. Many of my constituents have suffered murder and slaughter simply because they happen to be members of Her Majesty's security forces or of a Protestant persuasion.
Our present system of government is an indignity and it should be changed forthwith. Our Prime Minister has often expressed his intention to fight to strengthen the union between England and Scotland, but is it not time that the Government came out fighting to strengthen the union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Instead, the message that emanates from the Northern Ireland Office and from certain speeches of the Secretary of State is that the position of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom is qualified and conditional and may change. It is suggested that if the change came about, the Government would perhaps be delighted. The Government have no strategic interest in staying any longer within the Province.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows that I did not say that. He knows that that is untrue. He knows that that is a gross distortion of anything that I have said or could reasonably be supposed to have said. He does his case no good by saying that.

Rev. William McCrea: I am delighted to give way to the Secretary of State. I refer him to the tapes of the German speech, in which he made his views known.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is precisely what I had in mind and precisely why I intervened.

Rev. William McCrea: If the Secretary of State felt so strongly about it, he would not have mentioned that Northern Ireland costs the United Kingdom Exchequer £3 billion. He would not have thrown the cost of retaining Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom in our teeth. Nevertheless, the Government no longer have any strategic interest in staying any longer. Indeed, those are


blunt words. They are a blunt way of saying, "Your ports were useful during the war while the Irish Republic showed Germany the path to bomb your cities. Your men were valuable to die in the fields of France in defence of freedom on the world stage. But now we feel all right, Jack. We are in a different international field, so you can go off to Dublin."
Let me make it abundantly clear to the House that the majority of Ulster citizens will not go to Dublin. If the Government at any time desire to rid themselves of Northern Ireland, the people of Northern Ireland still will not go south towards Dublin. Let it be abundantly clear that we in Northern Ireland have sacrificed too much blood to remain out of the Irish Republic. We would happily sacrifice whatever else needed to be taken from us to ensure that we did not go into the Irish Republic. So whatever Bench hon. Members sit on, and whatever lectures they give us, they will not change the view of the Unionist majority. Six will not go into 26.

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. William McCrea: No. I must continue because I have limited time and I understand that the hon. Gentleman intends to speak in the debate; otherwise, I would certainly be glad to give way. No one delights more in healthy exchange and debate than me.
During the debate last year, the House was reminded of the statement that emanated from the then Minister of State at the time of the by-election referendum on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He said:
It doesn't matter how you vote, it won't make any difference.
That did not come from a Member of Parliament. It was not a misquote. It was a direct statement to the people of Northern Ireland as they were expressing their view on their position within the United Kingdom and its diminution by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That statement sums up the sort of democracy that we have endured under direct rule.
There are a few home truths which the House needs to hear. The majority Unionist community in Ulster is sick of betrayal. The Government are on the verge of pushing the majority community too far. The truth of the situation is this: the Government have moved towards alienating the vast majority of Northern Ireland. The ballot box decides that Dublin should have no say in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland—a part of the United Kingdom. Yet Dublin has been given more say in the affairs of Northern Ireland than the elected representatives of the people.
The Government have also decided that all political development in Northern Ireland will be halted until Unionists agree to some interference from Dublin. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, the spokesman for Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, seemed to envisage a different measure of that interference.
The ballot box declares the will of the vast majority of Ulster people to be British, yet the Government seek through educational programming, economic strategy and so on to erode our Britishness and develop an Irish identity. The ballot box establishes the right of every citizen to be equal and to have equal status, yet the Government have decided that a vote for the Social Democratic and Labour party—it has been mentioned

already—or other republican party is of more value than votes cast for the Unionist parties. The ballot box demands the upholding and strengthening of democracy, yet the Government have decided that Ulster can have only what is known in Ulster as a rigged democracy, without reference to British democratic principles.
We have to endure the Fair Employment Commission, which not only is guilty of discrimination against Protestants in its own employment but closes its eyes to blatant discrimination against the Protestant community, for example, in the Department of Health and Social Services. I say that not as one who believes that anyone should be discriminated against on the ground of religion. As the books will show, and as was confirmed by the Fair Employment Commission, the only time there was fair employment in Magherafelt district council was during the four years when I happened to be chairman, when people were employed equally. When the Social Democratic and Labour party controlled the council, it was found guilty of discriminating against Roman Catholics. That can be checked if Opposition Members do not believe it—the books shall open.
There was unfair distribution of Government jobs. SDLP constituencies were deliberately chosen for those jobs. Londonderry in the west of the Province was chosen, but what about Omagh, Cookstown, Magherafelt and all the other places—[ Interruption.] I shall come to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).
I read in a paper the other day that jobs are to be removed from Belfast, Ballymena and Bangor and are to be sent to Londonderry and Downpatrick. Jobs were robbed from Belfast, Ballymena and Bangor. Where the jobs were to be shared around, why were Omagh and other major settlements in the Province not chosen? Was deliberate discrimination practised? Were constituencies represented by parties with certain political complexions chosen to receive grants? It is unbelievable that, in order to obtain a grant for a Northern Ireland Housing Executive house, one has to state one's religion—whether Catholic or Protestant. Whenever challenges were made, we were told that the policy was designed to show how many Protestants and how many Catholics were receiving grants for their properties. Following a recently introduced law, that is now the policy of the present Administration.
We have been left in a despicable position—Sinn Fein deliberately and defiantly support IRA murderers, but the Government give Sinn Fein the respectability of sitting in the council chambers. The elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are supposed to conduct normal council business with those representatives of murderers.
There is unfair distribution of Government finances and Government agencies. I have received numerous letters from my constituents complaining about the imbalance of funding in Government finance programmes. Surely that cannot always happen by chance—some of the funding must be directed from specific sources. There is also a religious imbalance in Government-nominated posts. The list of acts of discrimination is endless. The failure to redress the balance will continue to alienate the Protestant and majority community, with monumental consequences.

Mr. Roy Beggs: There was a recent decision to establish and fund the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools in Northern Ireland. Does the hon.
Gentleman agree that the majority community perceived that decision as if, for the first time, one section of the community in Northern Ireland were having special treatment and special support at the expense of the majority community?

Rev. William McCrea: I have been given the statistic that in, I think, 1991–92, 73 per cent. of all funding in the education programme was directed towards maintained schools and 23 per cent. towards controlled schools, which the vast majority of people support. The figures speak for themselves.
A few weeks ago, I was in the United States of America attempting to develop a cordial relationship with industrialists from the southern states to help my constituency. At the same time, the IRA was blasting the business centre of our town to pieces. Millions of pounds worth of damage was done, not only in Magherafelt, but in Portadown, Lurgan and Newry—I could continue with the list.
Recently, in my constituency, the people of the Protestant community of Pomeroy came under systematic attack and intimidation. The position has not changed, and it is due only to the courage of the dwindling Protestant community in Pomeroy that the area has not been wiped clear of that community. I am talking not about a border area where the Provos have been on the march for a number of years but about a region that is the centre of the Province—a part of the United Kingdom.
A young man in my constituency, Mr. Martin, showed the spirit of enterprise and resilience that is displayed by many of my suffering constituents, but that spirit cost him his life. He decided not to move out of Mid-Ulster. Others are being encouraged to move by the security forces as they cannot be protected. However, Mr. Martin decided to secure a better future for his family by purchasing further land essential for the development of his farming industry.
Mr. Martin was brutally murdered because he was a Protestant farmer who was not willing to be intimidated out of his heritage by a bunch of murdering IRA thugs. That may not impress many people in the House, but on my visits to that man's home, I did not see many Members of Parliament telling the family how much they grieved for the suffering that that community has endured down the years. Mr. Martin sealed his purchase with his youthful blood, and his sacrifice must not be in vain. Ulster needs a Government with the will to protect its citizens, irrespective of worldwide propaganda and public opinion. The Martin family face intolerable intimidation and death threats; our Government must effectively defend the innocent and destroy the evil.
As the local government elections approach, much play has been made in that community and throughout the Province of the fact that a large section of the community does not support the terrorists and their political mouthpiece, Sinn Fein. The election results proved that one out of two in that community voted for the gunmen. In the rest of my constituency, the gunmen's vote increased in support. That is how the people were repaid after all the pandering to terrorists and others of the republican community.
Suggestions have been made in the House today that the Irish Government should be inviting us to the table. The Irish Government never asked Unionists to the talks. The first strand of the talks had nothing to do with the Irish Government; they were internal talks for the internal

parties of the United Kingdom. I say to the SDLP that, during the talks, it was made clear that there was no intention of having an internal settlement which was to be left on the sidelines to be used to exert pressure to encourage Unionists to sell out their Unionism. We will not sell out our Unionism for anyone. Our people have suffered and endured. Whether or not the House likes to hear it, I tell hon. Members that I shall not come to the House to put my hand to anything that sells out the future of my people.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I shall first refer to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I take no pleasure in anyone's political problems. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman since 1973, and I wish him well and thank him for his interest in Northern Ireland. We seldom, if ever, agreed and we had many bruising encounters and fundamental disagreements, but I could never accuse him of indifference. I should like to put on record that I wish him well.
There is almost something pathetic about today's debate which, in many ways, ignores one of the fundamental realities. We are almost trying to grovel for a share of a cake which should be equally distributed. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) spoke about this town getting that and another town riot getting it, and about the way in which problems were divided up into Catholic or Protestant ones. Such comments do not help the political process.
I shall concentrate on two main points as I know that there is a time constraint. Normally in such debates, we have a perennial whipping boy—the political parties of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State said in his opening statement that the responsibility lies principally with the people of Northern Ireland, but it does not. The problem we have in the north of Ireland was not created by the people of Northern Ireland; it was devised by two sovereign Governments—the British Government and the Government in the Republic of Ireland—as an artificial device to overcome the difficulties that they were facing at that time. That has left us with the problems that we have experienced for the past 72 years.
Let us not make the Northern Ireland political parties the whipping boys in this or any other debate. The situation is the result of a governmental decision. Having created something in such an artificial way that for 72 years it has been sustained only by artificial means—through immense security input, a remarkable amount of expenditure and bending the law as it has been bent by emergency legislation—the two Governments should be asking themselves what is so fundamentally wrong that we have had no solution or settlement in 72 years.
Is it the fault of people in the north of Ireland? Are we that bad that at times we have to endure such a patronising approach here? Let us not forget that the arrangement which created the problem was made at governmental level by two Governments. If we do not examine the fundamental artificiality and failure of that agreement, we ignore the core of the problem.
Of course we can talk and I congratulate the Secretary of State on a rather attractive travelogue about Northern Ireland, but that is not the place where I live. His speech was absolutely excellent from a presentational point of view, but it is not the Northern Ireland I know and it did


not touch the core of the problem. Until we face the core of the problem, we will continue putting pieces of icing on the cake.

Mr. Barry Field: There is little doubt that some people who negotiated the treaty 72 years ago believed that it was artificial and that it would change within 10 years. However, 72 years might lead one to believe that the treaty was the end of a process and not the beginning of one. That is the reality and, apparently, some people simply will not accept it.

Mr. Mallon: If the hon. Gentleman were to refresh his memory and read the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and the comments of the then monarch in relation to that Act, he would recognise that it was then seen as an ad hoc arrangement that should inexorably lead to a permanent position. Let me probe further, as one seldom has the opportunity to probe the British Government's long-term position on the viability of partition as a solution.
What if I were to say on record:
I do not agree that partition can be the basis for a settlement. My hon. Friend's underlying thought is perfectly right—there are two communities on the island and they must be given rights as two communities—but if there is to be a lasting settlement, it must be within the sovereignty of one Cypriot Government."?—[Official Report, 28 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 1006.]
Those are not the words of a Northern Ireland nationalist or republican; they are words of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House on 28 October 1992. In those words, is the Secretary of State recognising the inherent instability and artificiality of partition on a small island such as Cyprus? If he is, I believe that he is looking realistically and courageously at the way in which problems can be solved, rather than putting them under the icing on the cake.
We say yes to good local government for its own purposes and its own good reasons, to good economic co-operation between the political parties for their own good reasons and to good community relations by all means for good reasons, but not to solve fundamental political problems. We are hearing such a patch-up today—that, if we put another blob of icing over what is underneath, everything will come together and solve the problem. I believe that it will not. It should happen as of right, because it is the right thing to do.
I return to the fundamental point where I started and again ask the same question. Is it not the business of the two sovereign Governments who created a mutual problem to solve it? It is not enough to say that the Irish Government have no role to play. The problem is on the island of Ireland and affects them daily. It costs £1 million a day to police the border. It is a problem that is not going to go away in the normal conventional way.
We must examine the central issue. What are the Governments doing? Where is the missionary zeal we were promised not just by the British Government but by the Irish Government? Has it been siphoned off into a new form of contemplative order, as was referred to in the debate on this subject last year? When has there been realistic debate in the Republic of Ireland about a problem which is the Republic's problem as well as ours, and which was created by an Irish Government? Why are we experiencing an almost Trappist silence from those who had remarkable missionary zeal? Have both Governments

jointly decided that a vow of silence is right and that they should retreat into their own monastic settlements? Why are they contemplating how to solve a problem that they have had 72 years to solve? I believe that the question must be asked.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the political process if, with all the people dead, the price being paid and the instability it is causing, both Governments seem to have run to ground and are not giving it the attention that it deserves. I apply that criticism even-handedly because I believe that the responsibility lies with both Governments and not primarily with the political parties in the north of Ireland. That is one reason why so many peripheral issues start to become important.
Next week, when the inter-parliamentary body meets, wonder of wonders, we will be giving almost half a day's consideration to the Opsahl report. The inter-parliamentary body of representatives from this Parliament and from the Irish Government has experienced the problems in the north of Ireland; lo and behold, we will be giving the Opsahl report half a day's consideration. Is that facing reality? I am tempted to quote an observation made in one of the Sunday newspapers relating to the Opsahl report, although I cannot attribute it because I forget which newspaper it was in. It was a quote from the philosopher Nietzsche: "I sowed a dragon and I reaped a flea." The problems are more fundamental than that and have to be grasped.
One of our other recent distractions was a presidential visit. I do not know what the background to the visit was—I am not privy to that type of information. I wonder how much time during the meeting between the Prime Ministers of this country and of Ireland was spent discussing that visit, and how much was spent discussing a political resolution to our problems. I do not know and will never know. I suspect that it will be another in the litany of incidents that assume an importance that is remarkable given that the important things have not been addressed.
We have to face up to the fundamental realities of the problem. I am not speaking about creating a situation where Unionists cannot have parity with nationalists. I am asking a question that must be answered by both Governments: what is the long-term position in relation to a solution to the problem? Unless someone ultimately has the courage to say what that long-term position is, the fundamental problems will not be faced.
Are we to go on with the platitudes that we all utter when we are asked about the resumption of the talks? I do not think that anyone in the House believes that talks are to resume in the autumn. I am not sure that anyone in the British or Irish Governments believes it. Nobody in the political parties believes it, but one must conform and say that one believes that they will resume in the autumn. I do not think that they will, although I should like them to continue. I believe that the reason for that is that we have come to a watershed in the way in which the two sovereign Governments deal with the problem.
The matter could perhaps best be summarised in this way: is there an opportunity to start to solve the security problems, the policing problems, the justice problems and the problems of discrimination to which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster referred? Is there to be a solution once and for all, or is there to be another Anglo-Irish agreement? I should perhaps remind the Unionists behind me that, when they talk about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they are


referring to the most recent agreement. We must also remember the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1921, which has not been spectacularly successful.
We must make a distinction, because I believe that that will help the political process. Are we going for a solution to the problem? Or are we to get another cosy little arrangement that may last a while and struggle along artificially, and be propped up in every way—an arrangement whose members will be lionised by everyone of good will and which will ultimately collapse like all the other arrangements have collapsed? That is the position that the two Governments and the political parties are in.
I hope that we all have the courage to say that we are going for a solution. It is a path that will entail dangers and major compromises for everybody and will raise serious questions of all of us in this Parliament and in the north and south of Ireland. Are we to create for ourselves another little arrangement that will be as fundamentally flawed as the other little arrangements that have fallen before? That is the nub of the problem we face. Sooner or later, the Government will have to face that problem and answer the questions. Must we continue year after year with the classic failure of all Governments—that they never do the right thing until they have exhausted every other eventuality?

Sir James Kilfedder: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that Northern Ireland was an artificial entity. The first people ever to land on the island of Ireland came across the narrow strip of water between Scotland and what the hon. Gentleman refers to as the north of Ireland. They were the first people to live in the island of Ireland, and most historians accept that as a fact.
I have the honour to represent a constituency which was a centre of learning long before Dublin city ever existed. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman talked about the bitterness that he seems to think has been generated from the creation of Northern Ireland more than 70 years ago. I have read a history of the ancient Irish Churches—I am not talking about King Billy or Henry VIII or anybody like that—in Norman times, about 700 years ago.
At that time, the Irish monks wrote to the Pope to complain about the arrogance of the English monks, and to say that they did not want them in Irish monasteries. The English monks in the Irish monasteries also wrote to the Pope to complain about the barbaric Irish monks. The dispute was running long before 1920, when Northern Ireland was created.
In North Down, we have witnessed IRA bombing atrocities, although nothing like the ethnic cleansing that has taken place in the border areas of Northern Ireland. On the last two occasions, the IRA tried to destroy the heart of Bangor in my constituency, and four brave police officers escaped death only by a miracle, although some sustained serious injuries. More recently, there was the sectarian killing of an innocent Roman Catholic man, which I utterly condemn. The loyalist paramilitaries, in committing that dastardly deed and other tit-for-tat murders, play into the hands of the IRA, which thrives on fear and hatred.
We are fortunate in North Down. We have no peace lines dividing one religion from another. We reject sectarian hatred, and our earnest hope is for reconciliation

and political progress in Northern Ireland. Our prayers are directed to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and we hope that he will succeed in achieving political progress in the Province. That is why I support the talks, and why most people in Northern Ireland support them and hope that they succeed.
The previous Northern Ireland Assembly, of which I was Speaker, made a valuable contribution to democracy in Northern Ireland. I mention it because one of my hon. Friends referred to it and accepted afterwards that his remarks about that Northern Ireland Assembly were wrong. It was a useful Assembly, and from 1982 to 1986 the people of Northern Ireland, through their Assembly representatives, were able to play a positive role in the affairs of the Province. For that short period, direct rule was given a human face and a local input.
Sadly, having established the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government then embarked—in secret—on another initiative, which led to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That scuppered the Assembly, and scuppered any prospect of reaching a settlement based on an Assembly at Stormont. When I say that the initiative was embarked on in secret, I mean that the Government did not consult representatives of the majority community in any way.
Since 1986, Northern Ireland has been governed by Order in Council. Debate on such orders is normally limited to 90 minutes, and the orders cannot be amended. That is not democracy; it is a denial of democracy. The parliamentary democracy enjoyed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom is denied to the people of Northern Ireland, at a time when the population of Ulster are suffering appalling injuries and deaths at the hands of the terrorists. The campaign of terrorism has now lasted 25 years; we need more democracy, not less.
As I have often said before, that is why I support the call for a Select Committee to deal with Ulster's affairs, composed of all Northern Ireland Members. It could sit in Northern Ireland as well as in London; it would have the power to take evidence from expert witnesses, and to examine Ministers, civil servants and others. All the political representatives—representing most political hues in Northern Ireland—could then work together to resolve the problems that face people in Northern Ireland. Political slogans would no longer matter, or at any rate they would matter less. I believe that, in that way, a political rapprochement could be secured in Northern Ireland.
The history of Ireland is crammed with happenings that cause offence to loyalists as well as nationalists. I am a great believer in reading history; but there is no merit in constantly raking over the past and opening old wounds. Ireland's history is not unique; we are witnessing terrible slaughter in Bosnia and other parts of the world.
I commend the people of Ulster for the remarkable restraint that they have shown in the face of obscene slaughter, mutilations and bombings. The people of Ulster need not only political progress, but—first and foremost—the defeat of terrorism, whether it be Protestant, Catholic, republican or loyalist. I pay tribute to the courage of the security forces; I hope that the Government will now adopt a vigorous security policy.
I am disappointed by the Dublin Government's reaction. I think that they could do far more. I believe that, if all the people in Ireland, north and south—and all the people in Northern Ireland, including politicians who regard themselves as constitutional politicians—worked


together against terrorism, we could unite the people against the evil and bring peace to Northern Ireland. With peace, we would bring hope and prosperity to our community.

Mr. David Trimble: In the past half hour or so, I have learnt that another of my constituents has been murdered by terrorists. It happened this afternoon. I understand that that constituent served the community in the Ulster Defence Regiment; for that, he has been murdered—presumably by Republican terrorists, although I know no more about the circumstances.
I think of that, and I think of what has also happened today: the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who was responsible for security in Northern Ireland, resigned this afternoon. I have heard some of the comments of hon. Members about his resignation, and about the work he did as a Minister. Hon. Members will understand that I do not feel able to echo the tributes paid to him, following yet another demonstration of the failure of the Government's security policy. Whoever succeeds him as Minister responsible for security should reflect on what happened in Lurgan this afternoon, and on the loss of yet another good man who served the community well and paid the price for doing so.
That event casts a shadow over what I had intended to say. I shall therefore leave the bulk of it for another occasion. No doubt the news and current affairs programmes are already discussing the circumstances which led to the resignation of the Minister responsible for security in Northern Ireland, but I wonder how much discussion there will be of the terrorist murder which took place this afternoon—I suspect that there will be very little.
Today has been very confused. The emergency debate prompted by events involving Rosyth, which will begin in 25 minutes' time, has led to the withdrawal of the debate on the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. However, listening to the Secretary of State, I sometimes wondered whether in his haste he had picked up the wrong speech as most of his speech referred to Government policy on the economy of Northern Ireland, or on aspects of the work of the Northern Ireland Departments. Such matters should be dealt with in debates on appropriation orders, not in debates on the renewal of direct rule.
The tail end of the Secretary of State's speech referred to what are described as inter-party talks. That, too, struck me as—strictly speaking—not relevant to a debate on the extension of direct rule. Direct rule means the rule exercised by Her Majesty's Government, and the legislative authority of the House in regard to Northern Ireland. It is right and proper that the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government should rule Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. What should be observed in regard to the future of direct rule, however, is that it is a debased form of rule: we are not governed as we ought to be governed and as other parts of the kingdom are governed, but through a truncated legislative procedure—the Order in Council procedure—which is patently undemocratic.
We are governed without proper accountability. That is what the Secretary of State was trying to cover up. He

went through the motions of rendering an account, but there is no proper accountability, and he knows it. If there were proper accountability, the Secretary of State—like every other Secretary of State—would be called to account through a Select Committee. The absence of that procedure illustrates the improper nature of direct rule. This debate should have focused on the absence of a Select Committee procedure and on the shortcomings of the Order in Council procedure that we are forced to suffer.
If I had the time, I would have quoted from the valuable report of the Hansard Society commission on the legislative process, which expresses the hope that the Government will handle Northern Ireland problems sympathetically and, in particular, that they will return to a proper form of legislation. I also hoped to quote from the recently published and equally valuable report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which analyses the Order in Council procedure in a devastating manner and makes cogent proposals for reform—proposals that I endorse.
I will quote one sentence from the SACHR report—or, rather, from the appendix to it. It refers to the Government arguments for not legislating properly and summarises them by saying:
This argument"—
that is, the argument that the Government advance with regard to not legislating properly
may be interpreted as an indirect way of stating that the power to make laws for Northern Ireland is not required to be exercised either fairly, or willingly and responsibly.
That is what the House will be saying tonight when it reviews the direct rule legislation; it will be saying that it does not consider that the Government are required to legislate fairly, or willingly and responsibly. That is what Government Front Bench Members have been saying and what the Opposition have been endorsing. It is not right, and it is getting extremely tiresome to have to sit here year after year listening to feeble attempts to justify what is unjustifiable and to divert attention from it.
Reference to the talks and suggestions that it is somehow the responsibility of the people of Northern Ireland to put an end to direct rule is a diversion, and I have just one comment to make on it. One has to acknowledge that last year's talks, which ended unsuccessfully and inconclusively in November, had a destabilising effect on the community. Fresh talks which also end inconclusively would only worsen that destabilisation. Any responsible party representing, as we do, a significant section of opinion in Northern Ireland has to be sure that there is a reasonable prospect of success in any further talks process, whatever form it may take, before embarking upon it. It would be grossly irresponsible to undertake something that would result only in greater uncertainty and greater destabilisation of the community, because destabilisation, instability and uncertainty are the root causes of the terrorism of which we have seen another example today.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have to thank my own Front Bench Members for allowing me to come in e this stage and forgoing their own right to reply. I will try not to bite the hand that fed me on this occasion.
My position with regard to Northern Ireland is that we should be doing everything we can to try to establish peace and reconciliation, which involves an understanding of the


existence of different communities and the need for respect for the different traditions. At the same time, we must take as strong a stand as possible against terrorism and acts of abuse. Those positions do not seem to me to be in conflict; they are bound together, and there must not be any ambivalence on any side about objecting to acts of terrorism and abuse and organising to stand out against them.
I have been disappointed, however, with certain aspects of the debate so far. If we cannot have talks on the future of Northern Ireland elsewhere, at least opportunities such as today's should be taken to have our own talks about what we believe should be done.
Some of the debate that has taken place across the Floor between Northern Ireland Members has tended to reflect the difficulties in discussing the various positions. A good debate is one in which new ideas emerge and there is some sort of synthesis of the best points from the arguments on all sides. This is not always possible when the opposite sides are diametrically antagonistic.
I am sorry that certain things were not referred to by the Front Bench spokesmen. It was not until the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke that we had any mention of the Opsahl Commission, and then it was only to condemn its findings. The commission's report should be examined seriously. It has 25 recommendations, and I for one will have great difficulty with a number of them. Nevertheless, the commission engaged in some 3,000 interviews in Northern Ireland, often with people within community groups. It had some good discussions with sixth forms, for instance.
A whole host of views and attitudes emerge in the report which are not necessarily part of the conclusions and recommendations, but they help hon. Member; such as myself who are not from Northern Ireland to begin to gain some understanding of the situation there.
The points about direct rule in the report are very relevant to this debate. I do not have time to quote any of them, but I refer hon. Members to page 113. A number of points have been made about the inadequacies of the procedure in the House. I would have thought that the Secretary of State would at least have recognised the existence of the Opsahl Commission.
There are bodies of people in Northern Ireland which are not the major political parties, organisations or forces, but which work continuously for reconciliation and object very strongly to terrorism. Groups such as Families Against Intimidation and Terror are cross-community and adopt the same attitude to sectarian terror in their own communities. There is also the Peace Train organisation, and a body with which I am associated, called New Consensus, which has particular ideas about what should be done. Indeed, some of the best work is being done at community level, sometimes involving political parties, religious groups and others, and working on a cross-community basis.
I also believe that the debate should cover—the Secretary of State mentioned it—the economic and social elements of the problems of Northern Ireland, including those connected with direct rule. In this connection, I disagree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who felt that this was irrelevant.
However, the Secretary of State said the wrong things about economic and social development. He stressed such things as electricity privatisation, on which a unanimous position was taken across the political parties, apart from

the new Conservative party in Northern Ireland, which opposed that measure. When there is some unity in Northern Ireland on such a wide political issue, we should look very carefully at the situation. It may have been that the Government were playing a cautious role and trying to get everybody united against them in the interest of other forms of development, but I doubt whether there was that kind of subtlety. I believe that what happens is that the economic programme of the Cabinet and of the Government generally spills over on occasion to Northern Ireland, and almost runs counter to many of the other things that are being done.
The Northern Ireland Office will point to the valuable work that it does, the amount of money that is being spent in Northern Ireland and the encouragement of different forms of activity. Then it will come up with something that is in the ideological tradition of Thatcherism and apply it to Northern Ireland, although it is felt to be quite irrelevant by the organisations within Northern Ireland.
I feel that the appropriation debate offers a great opportunity. I hope that the timetabling of that debate will be re-examined and that it will not be just a one-and-a-half-hour affair. What opportunity do we have to discuss economic and social affairs in Northern Ireland? This is the nearest we come to a Northern Ireland budget. Because of the problems of Northern Ireland and because there is no proper local government structure, Northern Ireland Members are obliged to raise under this heading many issues that are local constituency concerns. They are matters that in another sphere would be dealt with in councils and other bodies. We cannot therefore get to grips with the economic and social issues. The political parties have not, it seems, analysed these issues and are not in a position to put forward an alternative.
Few Members attend Northern Ireland debates, apart from Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, the Front Bench spokesmen on both sides and those who support them. Only four Conservative Back Benchers and two Labour Back Benchers who have an interest in Northern Ireland affairs are here at the moment. There are many reasons. One is that we are considering a statutory instrument that cannot be amended. The ability to table amendments is not available to us. If we could do so, we should be able to put forward our own ideas about the way forward, or ideas that we had picked up as a result of our studies and of our talks with members of the Hansard Society and others. The procedures of the House deny us the opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland matters properly.
There is an overwhelming case for setting up a Northern Ireland Select Committee. Such a Committee could discuss properly Northern Ireland concerns. Representatives of all the political parties in Northern Ireland would be able to serve upon it and publish reports that the House could consider.
It is a mistake that the Ulster Unionists decided not to be members of the British-Irish parliamentary group, which does valuable work. Its work would be even more valuable if a Northern Ireland Select Committee could be set up. Some members of the British-Irish parliamentary group would be keen to serve on that Committee, which might lead to a valuable exchange of ideas. The opportunity for discussion and argument is lacking at present, with the result that only individual views are put forward. Discussion and argument could lead to compromise and reconciliation and possibly to agreement.
As for privatisation in Northern Ireland, it would be interesting to know how much money was spent on advertising shares when the electricity industry was privatised, compared with the amount of money spent on the development of the political process in Northern Ireland. When I asked the Prime Minister how much money was spent on the registration of United Kingdom electors, I was given an answer for Great Britain, but I was told that support for advertising electoral registration in Northern Ireland is not provided. In 1990, £705,000 was spent on getting people from overseas to register so that they could vote in Great Britain, but there is no such expenditure in Northern Ireland, which is disturbing.
However, that issue is only part of what is needed in a democracy. Many people believe that the franchise does not matter all that much, for there is little that they can do with their vote to influence affairs in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Michael Ancram): May I begin by thanking those hon. Members who have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I shall certainly ensure that their tributes are passed on to him. May I also pay tribute to my predecessor, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who, I know, is very much respected by all Northern Ireland Members.
This has been a lively debate which has centred mostly on the political question. I realise that I have only a short time in which to reply to the debate. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not answer all the points that were raised.
I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). This is the first time that I have attended one of these debates in an official capacity. His speech—I am told that this is not unusual—was strong on analysis but not very strong on answers. There were one or two inaccuracies in it that should be corrected.
The hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of not backing the three-strand concept in the talks. My right hon. and learned Friend has always backed the three-strand concept and has made that clear on a number of recent occasions. It is right to put on record the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has strong feelings about that matter.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to proposals and made the point that the British Government have left the Irish with no alternative but to go forward with their own proposals. It is right that I should make it clear that we have been formulating our proposals, which we hope may serve to give direction to the talks when they resume. We shall present our paper to all participants at that stage. In the meantime, we want to test and refine our ideas and judgment by means of dialogue with all of them. We are trying to carry out that process at the moment, through discussions with the party leaders and the Irish Government.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) made a helpful and constructive speech. I welcome what he said. We shall wish to consider his speech

carefully. He said that the prospect of joint authority appearing over the horizon was a matter of some concern to him. I should stress that my right hon. and learned Friend is already on record as saying that the political talks will not conclude with Northern Ireland becoming subject to the joint political authority of the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. Apart from the question of practicality that such an arrangement would raise, my right hon. and learned Friend does not believe, nor do the Government, that such an outcome would be acceptable to public opinion in Northern Ireland. I want to stress that too.
I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) with great care. Most of his speech was addressed to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, but he asked us why there was a difference in the Government's attitude towards Scotland and towards Northern Ireland. There is no difference. The only circumstances in which Northern Ireland might leave the Union would be on the basis that that was the will of the majority of the people who live there. Equally, the Prime Minister has made it clear in respect of Scotland that no nation could be held irrevocably in the Union against its will.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to what has occurred in his constituency today. I join him in his expessions of horror at that incident. He raised the question of security. The Government will not shirk their responsibility for dealing with terrorism. There is no acceptable level of violence. The Government are responsible for ensuring that the law effectively protects the rights of citizens, including the right to life. There is no compromise on that.
The Government have made it clear that we believe that at the end of the day there has to be dialogue if we are to find a solution to the problem. Many hon. Members have made it clear today that they find this debate distasteful because we are, in effect, debating the question of renewing direct rule. I can only reiterate the hope expressed by many hon. Members today and by my right hon. and learned Friend—a hope which I am sure has been expressed by many others over the years in such debates—that it will not be much longer before an end can be put to the present temporary arrangements for handling Northern Ireland affairs. That is what the process of political development is all about. If, in the coming months, we can come to a system of restoring the dialogue again—of trying to find that lasting accommodation—I hope that these debates will, in the near future, become a thing of the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish, first, to welcome the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) to his office. We did not have an opportunity earlier in the debate to do that. I wish him every success in his new job.
When replying to the debate, he referred to the question of dialogue. I appeal to the Government to try in future, when arranging business affecting Northern Ireland, especially in relation to renewing emergency provisions legislation, to try to provide time for adequate dialogue across the Floor of the House so that we may better explore and expose the issues.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order for me, but I have no doubt that it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

Orders of the Day — Trident Refit (Scottish Economy)

7 pm

Mr. George Foulkes: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

Leave having been given this day under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss:
The decision by the Cabinet on the Trident refit and its effect on the Scottish economy.
I wish at the outset to thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting this emergency debate, which represents a recognition, at least by the Chair, of the gravity of the Government's announcement today, particularly as it affects Scotland.
Today's announcement represents a vague promise made on the back of a broken promise. The Government have had to promise a programme of work to Rosyth because previous promises to Rosyth about the Trident contract have been shamefully and completely broken. One cannot disguise the extent to which the workers of Rosyth have been let down by a Conservative Government.
It is not simply I who am saying that. Unfortunately, the only Conservative Scottish Members here today are lickspittle Scottish Members. I wish that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) had been in his place today because—

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: He is ill.

Mr. Foulkes: I know he is ill, but he can still speak to the press. He speaks forcibly to the press and he speaks for Scotland far more than his hon. Friends on the Government Benches speak for Scotland. He is reported by today's Glasgow Evening Times as having said:
I have no faith in a Government which has behaved in such a diseased way.
That is the voice of a real Scots Tory with guts.
The promises that the Government made to Rosyth were unequivocal. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in November 1984 that the Government had settled where the Trident refits would be carried out, and he said that they would be at Rosyth. That position was repeated by Ministers from the Dispatch Box month after month, year after year, throughout the 1980s.
By the time the Government eventually reneged on that promise, over £100 million had been spent on a purpose-built facility for Trident. That money has now been poured down the drain. The taxpayers in the south-west of England and in Scotland will not be rejoicing at that waste of their money.
Lord Younger, Secretary of State when the commitments were given, wrote in his famous letter to The Times that
a matter of good faith is involved here.
He made it clear in that letter that he had given his word, on behalf of the Cabinet and the Government, to the people of Scotland that the submarine refit would go to Rosyth. He is now aware that his word of honour has been abused by the Government in backtracking on the clear pledges that were given.
As hon. Members pointed out earlier in the day, the present Secretary of State for Defence was then Secretary of State for Scotland and was party to the decision. Perhaps we shall have the spectre in five or 10 years' time


of Lord Rifkind writing to The Times complaining that the pledges that he has made today to Rosyth have been cast aside in another display of bad faith.
The future of Rosyth as the largest industrial concern is vital to the future of much of industry in Scotland. It is therefore vital that the Government fulfil their obligation to Rosyth, and get the figures right. In that connection, why is there not a consultative document before the House? When we have one, will it contain the full figures rather than the global figures that the Secretary of State gave in his statement?
I also remind the House that the existence of the naval base at Rosyth is inextricably linked to the future of the dockyard. The overall effect of the closure of Rosyth dockyard—were that to take place—would be the loss of up to 18,000 jobs in an area of already high unemployment. Hundreds of companies throughout Scotland are involved in work for the dockyard. Will the Secretary of State now do what he would not do earlier and estimate how much it would cost the taxpayer if all those jobs were lost?

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Does the hon. Gentleman not have a little shame in standing at the Opposition Dispatch Box complaining about job losses, when for many years Labour spokesmen called for the cancellation of Trident and for massive cuts in defence spending? Is he aware that, if those demands had been met, there would have been many more job losses at Rosyth and elsewhere?

Mr. Foulkes: I feel no shame whatever. The hon. Gentleman should feel shame as the PPS to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will he imposing many cuts on the people of Britain, not just on people of Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) asked him. In 1987, the hon. Gentleman signed an early-day motion calling for the cancellation of Trident. He knows that, if his proposals and that motion had been accepted, there would be no jobs at Rosyth or Faslane for Scotland or for any other part of the United Kingdom. Does he regret signing that early-day motion? If not, how does he reconcile it with his protest today?

Mr. Foulkes: I am flattered that the Secretary of State pays so much attention to my signature on early-day motions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is clear that the Government gave a commitment—[interruption.]—that Scotland, having the Faslane base on the west coast of Scotland, should have the benefit of the refitting on the east coast of Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: rose——

Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech, when perhaps he will answer some of the other questions that I am putting to him.
The defence arguments for the survival of Rosyth are also pressing. It is common sense that all the nation's ship refitting facilities should not be located at one yard. The same argument applies to retaining a nuclear submarine refitting capability at one yard.
For those strategic reasons, the Opposition have consistently campaigned for both yards to be kept open. Remember, submarines and their missiles are designed to be used in time of war, and at such times it is not inconceivable that refitting facilities would be targets. Having only one centre would leave us extremely vulnerable.
The pledges given in the past to Rosyth, including those by the recently deposed Chancellor when he was Minister for Defence Procurement, about the purpose-built facilities, are not irrelevant today. Are we to believe today's promises any more than we should have believed the false promises that were given in the 1980s? One need only examine the Tory election manifesto to find further evidence of promises made and broken—on taxes, benefits and tax cuts—in the past 12 months.
Until we have the real, full details of the announcement from the Secretary of State. we, the people of Rosyth and the people of Scotland will remain highly sceptical. When will the consultative document be published? Why is it not ready today? What sort of consultation will be carried out, and how long will it go on? Can we believe that it will be any different from the other consultations which the Ministry of Defence has had recently and which have turned out to be nothing more than rubber-stamping exercises, whether they were about Royal Naval stores, the Defence Research Agency or the Portland base? We need to know a lot more before this vague promise can be accepted as a copper-bottomed guarantee.
As I said earlier, the strong feeling in Scotland is that 18 ships is not enough. That is tiny compared with the 79 surface ships refitted at Rosyth over the past 10 years. The Secretary of State said in reply to my earlier questions that some of those 79 were smaller ships, unlike the 18 large ships. Will he tell us what guarantees there are of those smaller ships in the future?

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to. The hon. Gentleman asked about the minor warships. There are 49 minor warships due to be refitted over the next few years, and all 49 will be refitted at Rosyth. [Interruption.]

Mr. Foulkes: No one can be ungrateful for what the Secretary of State has said, but I will come to the reality.

Mr. David Harris: But leaving that aside.

Mr. Foulkes: I am not leaving anything aside. I will deal with it in detail. We need detailed figures.
The Secretary of State is surely aware that, given the Government's record, the workers at Rosyth will not be satisfied with blanket assurances and any overall total. If the Government have worked out a 12-year plan so exactly as to present it to the House, they should be able to set out a more exact timetable.
What ships will he refitted and when? What will be the level of work, under this so-called guaranteed programme of work, each year for the next 12 years? I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us that in his speech.
Will the Secretary of State tell us how he arrived at the total number of job losses at Rosyth and Devonport'? Is he aware that the management at Rosyth are saying that the best case scenario will lead to 700 job losses, not the 450 that the Secretary of State claimed. That best case scenario assumes the refitting of one type 42, one type 23 and one type 22 every 18 months in addition to three aircraft carriers and 10 Hunt class mine warfare vessels. Can the


Secretary of State tell us precisely whether that is the level of work that will be offered to Rosyth? I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman inquires further of the management at Rosyth, he will find that the figure of 700 includes jobs involved in non-Ministry of Defence work. The hon. Gentleman should recall that in my statement I referred to 18 major warships in addition to the 49 minor vessels that I mentioned just now.

Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State is wrong. I did check. There are 2,700 jobs at Rosyth on Ministry of Defence work. The management at Rosyth said that they will he able to sustain a maximum of 2,000 on the best case scenario, which, as I have said, is the refitting of one type 42, one type 23 and one type 22 every 18 months, in addition to three aircraft carriers, and 10 Hunt class mine warfare vessels. That is the very least guarantee we need, and I hope that the Secretary of State can give it tonight.
What will be the minimum total value of contracts placed with each yard over the 12-year period that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has specified? That will give us an idea of the balance of work for Rosyth compared with that for Devonport.
Given the state of defence planning and the monthly abandonment of commitments by the Government, how much credence can we give to today's announcement? How can we take seriously the promise of a fixed number of ship refits from a Government who are not only running down the size of the surface fleet but refuse to give an exact number for the size of the frigate destroyer fleet? As one of my hon. Friends said to me earlier, allocated work does not mean guaranteed work. Other yards which have had refitting will testify to that.
After today's announcement, we must ask what will happen to Rosyth after the year 2000, as its programme of work is run down over five years. There is the question of what will happen to the shipbuilding yards in the commercial sector which may have expected some of the surface refitting work to be allocated to Rosyth.
Has the Secretary of State made an estimate of what will happen to those shipyards? How many job losses will there be in those yards over the next 12 years, as the size of the surface fleet continues to reduce? The Secretary of State may remember that Lord Chalfont, chairman of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd., said on "Panorama" in March that, if Government policy continues as it is at present, the seven private yards could be as few as one or two by the end of the century.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foulkes: If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will have a chance to speak. I said that I would be as brief as possible, because many of my colleagues wish to speak.
The Secretary of State has acknowledged in a very——

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is good liaison on the shipyards between the south-west and Scotland, and I pay tribute to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen for the help that I often receive from them. However, if the announcement today had been that the refitting contract was going to Rosyth, will he tell the workers at Devonport whether there would have been an

emergency debate? Are not those on the Opposition Front Bench having their strings pulled by the Opposition Members sitting around them?

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I did not receive a copy of the Secretary of State's statement until 3 o'clock this afternoon. My request for an emergency debate went in before noon.
The Secretary of State has acknowledged in a limited way the importance of planning. He sought to assure the House that strategy for Rosyth will be set out and guaranteed for the next 12 years. Leaving aside the doubts that I have expressed, which are felt by all Opposition Members, over the validity of guarantees from the Secretary of State, will he concede the value of such strategic planning? His defence policy completely lacks such strategic planning.
The suspicion is that this is not really the admission of planning into defence policy, but a manoeuvre brought about by political expediency. The concessions announced by the Secretary of State today—this is probably the most important thing I shall say—have come about as a result of the dedicated campaigning and pressure brought to bear by those at Rosyth.
That view was underlined today by the comments of Alan Smith of Babcock Thorn, who expressed thanks for the efforts of employees, trade unions and local councils. I pay tribute to those efforts, and to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), who campaigned so well. We all wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West a speedy recovery. We would not have had the guarantees from the Government without that campaign.
We will keep up the pressure to ensure that the Government fulfil in hard contracts the promises made today. The real test of this announcement is whether they are cheering at Rosyth today. They are not. Instead, cries of anguish are echoing across the Forth. Those are the people for whom we speak.
I hope that, in voting for the Adjournment motion, Opposition Members will show their support for a two-dockyard solution, for a strategic plan for the defence requirements of this country, and for the economic needs of this country into the next century.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): This evening, Babcock Thorn, the management of Rosyth dockyard, issued a statement saying that its objective is to become the premier yard in the United Kingdom for surface ship refitting. The management have identified an important and valuable role for Rosyth. I believe that the statement that I made earlier, which indicates that in addition to the 18 major warships there will be 49 other vessels to be.refitted at Rosyth over the next 12 years, means that Babcock Thorn and its work force and the community in Rosyth can look forward to a large amount of work. That work will require thousands of people carrying out dedicated work in Rosyth in the interests of the Royal Navy and that will continue for many years to come.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Rifkind: I will give way in a moment. I must be allowed to begin my remarks.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and noticed that, as is the tradition with the Labour party at the present time, a number of things were set aside. He not only set aside the call that he made some years ago for Trident to be scrapped, but he refused to answer the direct question whether he regretted that call and, if not, whether he could now reconcile it with his passionate case for Trident work going to Rosyth. I am happy to give way now if he wants to answer.

Mr. Tony Worthington: rose——

Dr. Norman A. Godman: rose——

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Rifkind: Three Labour Members want to answer that question, but the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley remains silent. That is probably a wise decision.
That is not all that is being set aside. A few days ago, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley called for a solution that involved two dockyards with a future and not one. Today's announcement ensures two dockyards with a future. Two days ago, he called for an allocated work programme to the non-nuclear yard of 10 years. Today, we announced one of 12 years. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his request has been more than met?

Mr. Home Robertson: The Secretary of State said that Rosyth was to be the surface ship refit yard. Will he comment on the four submarines that are currently at Rosyth—Churchill, Dreadnought, Swiftsure and Revenge? If we cannot have refit work on the Forth, we certainly do not want scrapped nuclear hulks there. They should be down the Forth on the next tide.

Mr. Rifkind: We want to discuss the decommissioned submarines with Rosyth. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There are no technical reasons why the submarines have to be at Rosyth rather than another port. That can be discussed and I am sure that we shall reach an amicable decision, which will meet the interests of the Royal Navy and reflect the current situation.
We shall shortly publish a consultative document. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley got into a lather about why it was not published today. He knows perfectly well that the matters were concluded and endorsed by the Cabinet only this morning and it takes a little time thereafter to produce the document. It will be published and the consultative period will start from the date of publication. I believe that it is appropriate that we should offer those directly concerned the opportunity to offer views on what we have announced. The purpose of the consultative period is to ensure that we have missed nothing in taking our decision. At the same time, I must make it clear that we have not made today's announcement lightly and I would be surprised if anything new came out of that consultation period.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made much of statements made in the 1980s about the future of nuclear refitting. Those statements were made

in good faith as, no doubt, was the hon. Gentleman's repudiation of Trident. The statements were entirely proper in the international situation that then faced us. When we made our plans for the future of nuclear refitting, who could have foreseen the end of the cold war, the end of the Soviet Union and the cataclysmic changes that have taken place and have resulted in a significantly smaller Royal Navy and additional capacity at Devonport and Rosyth? Those changes, which are highly welcome at the end of the cold war, have affected many aspects of our defence planning and have required us to rethink our plans in a number of areas, of which nuclear refitting is just one.
When it became apparent, for reasons that no one foresaw, that we would have more refit capacity and did not therefore have to rely on a new purpose-built facility, it would have been unforgiveable not to take advantage of the opportunities that that provided. That decision was not taken today or in the past few months—it was initiated two years ago. Some of the comments that we have heard today suggested that it had come as a total surprise that there had been a competition between Devonport and Rosyth for nuclear work, but in fact it was initiated in July 1991. Hon. Members knew that, and it was known at the time of the last general election. We did not go into the general election promising the Trident work to one yard rather than another. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley must control himself rather than make such claims.
The reduction in the size of the fleet, and the consequent reduction in our refit requirements, made it possible to carry out nuclear refitting in upgraded existing docks. That lay behind today's statement. Taking that approach allowed us to save the Royal Navy and the taxpayer more than £250 million. I am sure that no one seriously suggests that we should have done otherwise.
I was asked earlier about the use of consultants. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) raised that matter when he saw my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. A range of specialist consultants have given advice: in particular, Coopers and Lybrand and, under contract to it, Allott and Lomax, which provided civil engineering advice, and AEA Technology, which provided advice on nuclear safety. They assessed the aspects of the proposals from the two contractors which fell within their area of expertise. It is quite proper so to use consultants, and that is what we would normally be expected to do. Their advice to us, quite properly, included much commercially sensitive information as well as classified material. It will obviously be published, so far as that is possible, and I can assure the House that the consultative document will be a full and free-standing explanation of the decision that we announced today.
My statement today was on the future of both yards. The future of Devonport will be based around the nuclear refitting work. The future of Rosyth will depend on its transition to a yard which can compete effectively for surface ship work. As I explained, that is not an easy transition, nor one that can be accomplished overnight. That is why, to help Rosyth accomplish the transition, we have set out an allocated programme, longer than the Opposition called for, which provides maximum opportunities.

Mr. Foulkes: The crux is the difference between allocated and guaranteed. I called for a guaranteed programme. The Secretary of State has given an allocated


programme, and he said a few minutes ago that Rosyth will be able to compete. That means that there is no guarantee whatsoever.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is getting carried away and not thinking before he speaks. I said that more than half the surface ship programme was allocated to Rosyth. The competition will be for the other half of the surface ship programme. It is quite possible that Rosyth, Devonport and the shipbuilders will be able to compete for that work, and I very much hope that Rosyth will win a proportion of it.

Dr. John Reid: I am glad of that clarification, although it was not necessary as we already understood that. [ Interruption.] I assure Conservative Members that we all did. We would like clarification of the first half. Is a guarantee being given to the people of Rosyth that the first half—unqualified allocations—will go to Rosyth, with no tendering, no negotiations, nothing to do with price and nothing to do with conditions? [Interruption.] Ah! Or are we talking about the intention to give it, subject to price and subject to negotiation? In other words, is the first half subject to no guarantee whatsoever, as we have been saying?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman can do better than that. We have said that in the next 12 years 18 major warships and all the minor warships will go to Rosyth. Allocated programmes are not new. We have had allocated programmes for Rosyth and Devonport for a number of years. Of course we hold discussions with the yard about price. We cannot simply say, "Whatever you charge we will automatically pay." The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) knows that that was a silly remark. I know that he did not mean it and that he certainly will not repeat it when he has thought about it.
We discuss with the allocated yard the price to be paid for a project to ensure that the taxpayer is not ripped off. That has been true of the way in which allocated programmes have been handled for Rosyth and Devonport. There is no change in the way in which allocated programmes are used. They have provided work for Rosyth and Devonport in the past, and that is what will happen in the future. It will be the same with Devonport. Devonport, in effect, has an allocated programme of the nuclear work. That does not mean that we shall give it the programme, whatever it charges. We shall discuss the price to be paid with Devonport.

Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Rifkind: I should like to continue. The hon. Member will have a chance to comment later.
The allocated programme builds on Rosyth's substantial experience of surface ship refitting. Many comments have been made in the past few weeks and months suggesting that Rosyth has no experience of surface ships. That is absolute nonsense. Rosyth has dealt with more than 79 surface ships, including frigates and destroyers, in the past few years. That is a very heavy programme.
The phasing will be organised in a way consistent with the practical management of the refit programme and ensuring a smooth transition from a mix of nuclear and non-nuclear work to refitting on surface ships only. The full allocation will include some of the Royal Navy's newest, largest and most advanced vessels, including

aircraft carriers such as Ark Royal and Invincible, neither of which has been dealt with at Rosyth in the past. Both will be available for refit at Rosyth.
Refitting an aircraft carrier is a major industrial task. It is perhaps not appreciated that it involves 65,000 man weeks of work and takes two years to complete. That is very similar to the length of time required for a Trident submarine refit. I have indicated that Ark Royal and Invincible will be available for work not at Devonport but at Rosyth as a result of the announcements today. It is a huge technical project requiring a wide range of engineering skills of the highest order. At the peak of refitting an aircraft carrier, 1,000 persons will be on the site on that vessel alone, quite apart from any others.

Mr. James Wallace: It has been reported this evening that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland used the words "guaranteed programme of work". The Secretary of State for Defence has not so far used the word "guaranteed". Can he now tell us that there will be a guaranteed programme of work?

Mr. Rifkind: That is the distinction between guaranteed and allocated. I have indicated quite categorically and unequivocally the number of ships that will go to Rosyth, and their classes.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Rifkind: Many hon. Members want to speak in this short debate, and a long speech from me would not be fair to them.
These refits present considerable engineering challenges, but we are satisfied that Rosyth will be fully capable of meeting them and, indeed, will use this work as a springboard to bid for non-allocated work.
I am pleased at the response to my statement this afternoon from the chairman of Babcock Thorn, who said that he would direct all his efforts to ensuring that the programme of work was delivered and maxiinised. He said—I can do no better than repeat his words—that he believed that he could undertake the work and face competition with confidence and success. That is important. We know perfectly well how, until today, both yards maintained that that would not be possible if they did not win the nuclear work. Now that that matter has been resolved, it is good that Rosyth is facing the new opportunity in such a positive way. I welcome that attitude, and I am sure that the chairman's optimism will be justified.
With regard to employment, as in the past we expect both companies to continue to improve their productivity and hence their competitiveness. It is to be hoped that the increased competitiveness will enable the companies concerned at both yards to increase their workloads and hence their profitability. In that way, it should be possible to increase both productivity and efficiency and at the same time maintain or, indeed, increase employment levels. As at present, we expect the companies concerned at the two dockyards to continue to seek and to obtain commercial work to augment that provided by the Ministry of Defence. Such work tends to be of a general engineering nature, of which recent examples have included the refitting of railway carriages, refurbishing engines and other projects, both at Devonport and at Rosyth.
As I indicated this afternoon, however, the total Ministry of Defence workload is planned to decline towards the end of this decade. On the basis of the number of employees currently assessed as being necessary to fulfil Ministry of Defence work, there will be reductions of the order that I indicated earlier today. I acknowledge that, while 450 jobs at Rosyth or, for that matter, 350 at Devonport appear relatively few in terms of the total work force, it is regrettable that there should be any losses at all. We hope very much that both Rosyth and Devonport will be able to develop new areas of activity, thereby reducing the number of necessary job losses.
Our calculation of the employment consequences of the Government's proposals are based on detailed discussions with the two companies about their future business plans. Obviously the details of those discussions are confidential between us and the dockyard companies, but I can say that both companies put forward proposals both for nuclear refitting and for surface work only. The plans were discussed with the companies and with our specialist advisers. Thus, we have had from both yards information as to what a surface work programme might consist of.
I am conscious of the fact that this is a short debate. Having given way on a number of occasions, I intend now to come to a conclusion. Before doing so, however, I should say that I do not hide from the House or from anyone else the fact that this has been a difficult and painful decision. I am well aware of the aspirations at both Rosyth and Devonport, but I do not intend to take from Opposition Members—most of whom did not want Trident in Scotland in the first place—complaints about the outcome. That goes for the nationalist party in particular, which continues to hold that view. That did not make our decision any easier. What did make it easier, however, was the knowledge that the Royal Navy requires two dockyards, not one.
Over the past few months we have seen how the competition on the nuclear work has been of enormous benefit in saving the Royal Navy more than £250 million. That would not have happened had only one dockyard been in existence. The same principles apply to the surface ship programme, which consists of very many large warships. Therefore, I believe that those who, for very understandable reasons, will continue to be concerned about the future can take very considerable comfort from the fact that having two dockyards will not simply be beneficial in employment terms or helpful in resolving a difficult problem but will also provide major benefits for the Royal Navy. As a consequence, I believe that they can command confidence and support.

Madam Speaker: This is a very brief debate, and I seek the co-operation of hon. Members. I hope that speeches will be short so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The decision that was announced today may have consequences for the next 30 years. It is therefore extremely important that we should examine with some care the precise use of language that we heard in the statement delivered earlier and in the speech that has just been made. It is important also that we should remind ourselves precisely what Lord Younger felt

compelled to write to The Times about a fortnight ago. In his letter, which has been quoted partly but not in its entirety, he says that he understands that the Government will soon be making a decision as to whether to maintain their intention to refit our nuclear submarines at Rosyth. He says:
I believe that the financial and operational case for doing so is now clear, as is the strong case for concentrating our refitting of surface warships at Devonport.
Thus, in the opinion of Lord Younger, a two-yard solution, with Rosyth taking the nuclear submarines and Devonport concentrating on surface warships, is the preferred conclusion. The noble Lord says:
There is now, therefore, a clear opportunity to confirm a long-term role for both Rosyth and Devonport which will serve the Royal Navy well and safeguard thousands of jobs in both locations.
Before a final decision is taken, I feel I must remind all concerned"—
no doubt he had Ministers in mind when he said that—
of a matter of good faith which is involved here.
The next paragraph refers to the noble Lord's efforts to persuade public opinion in Scotland to accept Faslane. He goes on to say:
One of the most powerful arguments which I deployed was there would obviously be many jobs for Scotland associated with operating and maintaining the submarines. I know that many in Scotland would therefore feel badly let down if a major part of these jobs were now to be removed from Scotland.
I hope it will be understood that I would find it impossible to support such a move as my good faith would clearly be called into question.
One could hardly have a clearer statement from a former Secretary of State for Defence who was previously Secretary of State for Scotland. That clearly shows the extent to which he believed that a commitment had been given.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): The hon. and learned Gentleman may like to know that I spoke to Lord Younger today, who declared himself well satisfied with the arrangements announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Campbell: I had a small side bet with myself that, at some stage in the debate, there would be an intervention of that kind. We shall wait to see whether, in two days' time, The Times carries a letter telling us that the earlier one has been withdrawn, that the former Secretary of State for Defence no longer feels that his good faith has been impugned by the decision that the Government announced today. I shall wait for that letter before I make a judgment on the extent to which Lord Younger may have changed his mind.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he is saying exactly what he said on the "Today" programme yesterday—that it is Liberal defence policy that the submarine refit should go to Rosyth? If he and the Liberal party believe that the work should go to Rosyth and not to Devonport, why have his colleagues in the west country been saying that it is Liberal policy to support the bid by Devonport?

Mr. Campbell: I have addressed several meetings of workers from both dockyards, and I do not recall the hon. Gentleman being there. During the past 12 months, I have made it clear that a two-yard solution was appropriate, with the submarine work going to Rosyth and the surface


work to Devonport. That solution lends itself to the host. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). If the hon. Gentleman is trying to claim that every party has a universal view on the matter, he is grossly mistaken. Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the south-west have campaigned on behalf of their constituencies; who would have expected them to do anything other than that? They have campaigned on behalf of their constituents, which I regard as entirely right and proper.

Mr. Nicholls: rose——

Mr. Campbell: I shall not give way. When it comes to wisdom, I think that I can do rather better than the hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will resume their seats.

Mr. Campbell: As my party's defence spokesman, I have made my position clear over the past 12 months. If the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has only just woken up to it, that suggests that he has not followed the issue with much concentration.
I want to deal with the words used in the Secretary of State's statement. He told us that work was to be "allocated". "Allocated" means nothing more than "assigned", and work which is allocated can be reallocated. A moment ago, in response to an intervention, the Secretary of State tried to say that the position of Devonport was the same as that of Rosyth. He should read his own statement. He said:
I am therefore announcing today our conclusion that, subject to satisfactory contractual negotiations, we shall proceed with the Devonport nuclear refitting facility proposals.
There is to be a contractual relationship in respect of the nuclear submarine refitting, but we are not told that there will be a contractual relationship for 12 years for the allocation of work to Rosyth.
The language of today's statement carries the same emphasis and has the same substance as that which Lord Younger used many times when arguing the case on behalf of Rosyth. If the language used by Lord Younger can now be departed from, the same could apply to that used by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Harris: The hon. and learned Gentleman rightly emphasises the importance of language. Will he explain something to the House and, in particular, to the voters in the south-west? In a BBC interview yesterday and again today, he said that he was speaking in his capacity as the defence spokesman for the Liberal party. Were the Liberal Members of Parliament from the south-west and the candidates in the county council elections in Cornwall and Devon saying something completely different? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that they were not presenting Liberal party policy, or is it simply a case of the hon. and learned Gentleman saying one thing to some audiences, especially in Scotland, while his party, true to form, is saying something completely different in the south-west?

Mr. Campbell: If I am trying to conceal my position, going on the "Today" programme and telling the world

what it is is a pretty rum way of doing so. Those who argued for Devonport did so on a constituency basis, just as some Conservative Members argued against the hon. Member for Tayside, North and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross. Is the hon. Gentleman denying the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross the right to express his opinion? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not to be allowed to express his opinion because it might be contrary to the views of Conservative Members from the west country? [Interruption.] We appear to be taking part in the first round of what one might describe as Operation Christchurch. There is more emphasis on that than on the merits of the argument with which we are concerned.
When Lord Younger made his commitment, the present Secretary of State for Defence was the Secretary of State for Scotland. The commitment was made publicly and repeatedly, and I do not think it is unreasonable to infer that it was also the commitment of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the present Secretary of State for Defence. If Lord Younger thinks that it is a question of good faith, is it unreasonable to ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he believes a question of good faith is now raised by his support for what he has announced today? It is a serious question to which we are entitled to an answer.
One of the things that is forgotten is that the nuclear refitting work will be guaranteed. That will make a contribution to the fixed costs of Devonport, which will enable Devonport, quite legitimately, to offer the most competitive prices for surface work. Which hon. Member of any party believes that in five years the Treasury will say that, because it had been stated on an evening in June in 1993 that the work would be allocated to Rosyth, it must abide by that statement and that it cannot explore the possibility of obtaining cheaper prices by going to Devonport? I cannot believe that anyone considers that a reasonable proposition.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the workers of Swan Hunter would endorse that point? They were promised the Royal Fleet Auxiliary work which was then taken from them and given to the people who built the Trident boats, which are now to be refitted at Devonport. They can make a sufficiently low bid because their overheads have been carried by the Trident programme.

Mr. Campbell: Precisely. The cost of this type of operation is as dependent on fixed costs as on revenue costs, so the advantage that Devonport will enjoy, quite legitimately, will give it a pre-eminent position in competition. Who believes that the Government will say that there can be no competition because, on an evening in June, they had said that they had allocated work to Rosyth?

Dr. Godman: As a lawyer, is the hon. and learned Gentleman completely satisfied that the allocation of commercial contracts for the refitting of warships to a commercially managed facility does not in any way infringe European Community directives on competition and public procurement?

Mr. Campbell: If the word "allocated" is used, it does not. If another form of language were used, which implied a contractual obligation, there might be a contravention.


The word "allocated" has clearly been used advisedly for, among others, the reason suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
It was notable that the words "strategic" and "operational" did not appear in the Secretary of State's statement, although Lord Younger clearly believed that operational matters in respect of nuclear submarines would best be served by a solution involving that work being allocated to Rosyth.
The cold war has finished. One does not wish to be too apocalyptic, but there have been substantial developments in missile technology. Which member of the Government will tell us that within the next 30 years no unfriendly country will have available to it missile technology that might enable it, if it were so minded, to target what may turn out to be the sole refitting yard in the United Kingdom? It is not sensible to create circumstances in which, through the operation of the marketplace, all refitting work is concentrated in one location. Equally, is it not sensible to take account of the fact—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has something to say, no doubt he will try to catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, rather than making inaudible observations from a sedentary position.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sorry, but I was having great difficulty in following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, because he started his speech by saying that all the refitting of nuclear submarines should be concentrated at Rosyth, but now he is saying that we should not concentrate the work in one place because of the threat from nuclear missiles. Can he explain that to the House?

Mr. Campbell: That is not what I said, and if the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard he will realise that. I said that we should not concentrate all our refitting work, submarine and surface, in one place. That would not make strategic sense.
There is also an operational reason for putting nuclear submarine refitting work at Rosyth. It is a gentle two hours by car from Faslane, where the submarines will be based. If ready access to information and equipment is needed, how better to obtain it than in two locations only two hours apart?
I look forward with interest to hearing the request from the work force at Devonport that they should now take the four decommissioned nuclear submarines sitting at Rosyth. The Secretary of State said that there would be negotiation about that, but I fancy that the negotiation may be rather one-sided, with the management of Rosyth saying, "Take them away; we do not want them." Where will they go? Will they be towed to Devonport? The people of Devonport may have something to say about that.
In a letter that must have been written in full knowledge of the changed circumstances on which the Secretary of State for Defence sought to rely in his speech, Lord Younger continued to advance the view that a two-yard solution was not only possible but desirable. The Government have failed to heed that advice, and in that respect I believe that they have failed in their responsibility.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I welcome this short debate, which follows a long period of doubt and argument. For me the past 24 hours have been the worst in many months. I really began to feel that Rosyth's argument for the maintenance of the submarine refit programme was about to disappear. The importance of the programme was the monopoly effect, and the long-term guarantee of work for people within the successful dockyard for many years to come.
The nuclear deterrence programme is a platform on which Scottish Tory Members of Parliament have long stood. We have argued the case with vigour, and in Scotland we used to be told that we were on a most unpopular platform. All the Opposition parties spoke against us. We welcomed the nuclear deterrent submarine fleet to Scotland, both to Faslane, where the operations were based, and to Rosyth, where we maintained the Polaris fleet successfully for many years. I must express my regret that the long tradition established over that period is about to disappear.
I stood for election in Dunfermline, West in 1987. I was a former dockyard apprentice, and I believed that I was arguing for the dockyard and for common sense dockyard policies. It did not do me a lot of good, I must admit, although the Labour party and the Scottish National party both opposed Trident. At that time the Labour party was prepared to decimate defence spending, so the result of the election defied belief.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Younger. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that times change, and that the ending of the cold war has brought a major change. When Lord Younger was Secretary of State for Defence, defence spending was rising year by year. And year by year Opposition spokesmen said, "Cut that expenditure. It is disgraceful. We should spend the money elsewhere." Now defence spending is falling, and we must examine the realities of the financial arguments. We must get the best deal possible for the money that the MOD spends on land, at sea and in the air. We must seek the best value.
On that basis our requirements had to be re-examined. I am sad to say that the re-examination was not at any time to Rosyth's advantage. I regret the need; I regret that that had to happen. In December and January things looked gloomy for Rosyth. But I am delighted to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland appeared to step in and to use a heck of a lot of influence to ensure that there was a rethink, and the Government pulled back from what seemed an inevitable decision in favour of Devonport. My right hon. Friend ensured that there was a level playing field, and Rosyth was given a chance to submit a fresh bid.
At that time the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley criticised the Government in the House for the delay, just as he criticised the Government yesterday for having taken so long to come to a decision. But I should say that it was in the interests of Rosyth and of Scotland that the Government took such a long time. We had to ensure that the final decision was based soundly on both economic and strategic sense. The time that has been taken suggests to me that the decisions have been reached on a logical basis.

Dr. Godman: rose——

Mr. Gallie: I give way to my——

Dr. Godman: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was going to call me his hon. Friend. There is a good deal of sense in what he says about times changing, but some things remain constant, and one of those is ministerial bad faith. It was Lord Younger who, as Mr. George Younger, sold Scott Lithgow down the river despite his promises to support that yard's submarine-building capability. He reneged on those promises, and that is my fear with that odd-job lot on the Government Front Bench. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's confidence in them.

Mr. Gallie: Clearly the lion. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godrnan) and I differ about some things. On occasion we share common views, but certainly not on this issue. I identify with his recent comments on law and order, but those are not the subject of the debate tonight.
Over recent months a heck of a lot of hypocrisy has been in evidence. I have been delighted to work with Members of all shades of political opinion from all parts of Scotland to try to project the Rosyth argument. I believe that we had a good argument. Yet I hear that I have been criticised. I believe that I was called a "lickspittle" tonight by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. That is shameful. I stick to my principles, not like the hon. Gentleman who changes from side to side. One day he believes in CND; the next clay he wants Trident at Rosyth. What nonsense. If he is talking about lickspittles, he should at least put his credentials to the test and stick to his principles.
Recently, the Fife regional council became a nuclear-free zone. However, it wanted the Trident contract to remain at Rosyth. I must pay the people in the Fife region a compliment—they put up a good fight. It is a pity that they did not think about some of the things that they were saying before they were forced into the battleground.
When I look at hon. Members from the Scottish National party—I must say this with a bit of humour—I remember recently watching families from Rosyth coming ashore at Westminster pier from a pleasure cruise. One member of the SNP was standing with a placard in one hand and a child in the other. What did the placard say? It said: "Rosyth is home for Trident". That is hypocrisy.

Dr. Godman: What did the child say?

Mr. Gallie: The child believed what the placard said because her family fortunes had been tied up for many years in the maintenance of the nuclear programme.
We must examine the strategic reasons why Devonport has been selected. There is a 90-day period in which we must examine the credentials. Rosyth's strongest argument was its link with Faslane. I believe than. that important aspect was considered but I would like further confirmation. From the figures presented, there is little doubt that Devonport's argument was fairly won. Once again, the figures must be presented and scrutinised. They will be carefully analysed over the next few weeks.
The dismal feelings that I had yesterday were based on a belief that we were faced with many thousands of job losses in either Devonport or Rosyth. I am pleased that the figures announced by the Secretary of State for Defence do

not justify our worst fears. Having said that, the loss of 450 jobs at Rosyth is something that I do not welcome. Indeed, I regret it.
Rosyth has the competence to maintain the surface fleet in the next 10 years. The work force will build their skills and achieve a level of excellence that will ensure that they can compete with any other yard in the land in the years ahead. Rosyth will have a future based on the skills, enthusiasm and drive of its excellent work force. I welcome the words of the management at Rosyth today who stressed that their aim was to become the premium yard in the United Kingdom for surface ship refitting. They have a premium work force and will achieve that aim.
Over the next 90 days, I seek an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend on the issue of the allocated vessels. At Rosyth, a level of skills has been built up in the nuclear health physics field, but those skills will not be able to be used fully in the coming years. Rosyth and Devonport have maintained traditional links over the years. I would like to think that there will be a place for some of the workers at Rosyth to undertake the nuclear work at Devonport in the years ahead. One aspect that I must not ignore is the fact that 3,000 jobs are still tied up at Faslane. Faslane is important to the Scottish economy and we must not forget that.
In conclusion, I simply record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who met the Scottish Conservative Back-Benchers. He listened attentively and seemed to have a good grasp of all the issues. I thank the Secretary of State for Defence, who had an open door for us, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who listened to us yesterday when there was a late bid from Rosyth. Above all, I thank the Secretary of State for Scotland. I share his disappointment tonight. His enthusiasm and determination for a prosperous Scotland and a prosperous Rosyth for the future will be ongoing.

Mr. Henry McLeish: We do not need any lectures on principles from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) made a distinguished and excellent presentation at one of our joint parliamentary press conferences. The difference between that presentation and his speech tonight is marked. One issue that annoys the Scots intently is that Conservative Members speak with one tongue in Scotland, speak with another voice on joint platforms and say something else again in the Chamber. That is hypocrisy. Essentially, that is at the heart of the problem.
The key political issue that the Government have tried to avoid is the betrayal over the question of Trident coming to Rosyth. It does not matter how we dress up the alternative—we have simply ignored the issue of why, after so many promises, Trident has gone to Devonport and the surface fleet has gone to Rosyth.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: I will not give way.
In my constituency this evening, there is concern about the statement. There are three parts to that concern. Between now and the year 2000, we will have allocations but no guarantees. Between the year 2000 and 2005, we will have fewer allocations and simply no guarantees. What will happen beyond 2005? There is no 30-year


guarantee for the apprentices and those who have made a commitment to the defence of the United Kingdom. We simply have a three-phase campaign which could result in a significant diminution of employment in Fife and Rosyth.
The question that my constituents want answered is, when does an allocation become a guarantee? In a programme on Friday 18 June, John Foster, a member of the Scottish lobby, asked Lord Younger an important question about the future. I quote:
'Mr. Rifkind, the Defence Secretary, has always decreed that there will be two dockyards', he said. It has been suggested anyway that Rosyth, if it did not get the nuclear refitting, would get some guaranteed surface refitting work possibly for a period of years.
The general view expressed in Scotland is that it is difficult to believe that there would be an effective solution for Rosyth because, presumably, the work would be competitive and there would have to be a level playing field. Anything less than a full-term guarantee that Rosyth will he written into surface refitting for the foreseeable future would not be good news.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: No.
The essential core political issue, which has not been addressed despite opportunities to do so, is the difference between an allocation and a guarantee. It is simply that the Government have no long-term intention of sticking to the commitment made to give the surface work to Rosyth. I challenge the Minister to translate the question of allocations into a specific guarantee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) got to the nub of the matter by suggesting that an allocation was not a guarantee. My constituents cannot pay mortgages or work on the basis of glib allocations, especially given the track record of the Conservative Government over the past decade. That major core issue has not been addressed.
We have examined the figures given in the statement today. Our anlaysis differs greatly from that of the Secretary of State for Defence. No one believes that there will be only 450 job losses at Rosyth. The figure could be 1,000 or much higher. So the first question is, when will the Government come clean? I hope that the next 90 days will not masquerade as consultation but will give us the truth about the political package which the Government present as a business issue.
What about the 12 years of work? I have already raised the point and I do not want to dwell on it. However, hon. Members have made the point that the largest number of allocations of work will not substitute for copper-bottomed guarantees to the work force, their families, Fife people and people throughout Scotland.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: No. I will not give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made it clear that the allocations of work could become complex if there were a problem of price or

scheduling of work. One is dealing with a reasonably small number of ships over a long period and with substantial technical work. My belief, which is shared by my constituents, is that the arrangement gives the Government an opportunity to duck their commitments, as they have done in previous years.
We shall probe the Government on many outstanding issues. The main task of Labour Members is to secure the largest number of jobs for Rosyth. The statement today will not do so. That is why my hon. Friends have expressed anxieties about it.
I have heard much hypocrisy from the Conservative Benches, but also from the Scottish National party. I wish to remind the House of a recommendation made by an SNP health council to a district council in Scotland on 25 November 1992. There was a debate about the future of Rosyth. The recommendation was that the district council
totally oppose the deployment of Trident to Rosyth Dockyard".
The Conservatives then said the opposite. They wanted Rosyth to get the Trident refit. My friends in the party on that council moved that, in order to reach an agreed resolution that would satisfy all involved, the council should invite the management and work force to come to the council to make their case. The vote was 12:11. All the SNP members voted against inviting the management and work force to make their case. That is hypocrisy. I await with interest the comments this evening of any SNP Member.
Scots know the guilty party in the betrayal of the promise of the Trident refit for Rosyth. They will not accept the overtures from the SNP, which did nothing to assist the campaign to help the work force to secure that contract. Scots will admire honesty and hard work on their behalf, but they will not accept the treachery of both the SNP and the Conservative party on this vital, strategic, industrial, employment and economic issue. That is the agenda. We shall continue our campaign.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I am pleased to make a brief speech in this important debate. Naturally, the news that Devonport has won the Trident contract has been well received in Plymouth tonight. It has been a long and fierce battle. However, there is an affinity between Devonport and Rosyth dockyards. Of course, there will be an understanding in Devonport tonight of how the workers at Rosyth feel. There will be pleasure that the Government package announced this afternoon was a substantial package of jobs, hope and future for Rosyth. That news is also well received in Devonport and Plymouth tonight. It is what we want and we welcome it.
We have heard a great deal about Rosyth in the debate tonight. That is right, but it is important for a few minutes to paint some of the background of the case for Devonport. I begin by thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues in the Government for the way in which they have handled this difficult process of the contract race. My constituents understand what a difficult decision it has been and they respect the way in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have conducted themselves throughout.
I wish to explain why the issue is so important to Devonport and paint the economic backdrop. All the traditional industries in the west country—agriculture, fishing, defence-related industries, tourism and so on—are


in decline for a range of reasons. Many Members of Parliament regard the west country as a pleasant place to go on holiday. So it is, but the backdrop to the region is economic decline. We have high unemployment and the economic trends are going against us.
Our dockyard has a fine history. Devonport exists because of the dockyard. It has been there for 300 years. It is the reason why we are there. Since 1985, when the private management of the dockyard took over, we have lost 7,500 jobs through scaling down our defence needs. We have paid our part of the peace dividend. All of us in Plymouth know families who have lost jobs in the dockyard in the past seven years. We have taken our fair share of the pain, believe me.
In addition to that backdrop, Plymouth is peripheral. As it is so far from other large cities, inward investment has not come our way very easily. That is not the case for the centre of Scotland. Plymouth is the engine room for the west country and the dockyard is the dynamo for that engine. That is why the issue is so important to us in Devonport. That is why we fought so hard.
What was our case? It is perfectly true that some years ago there was no question but that the nuclear submarine would be maintained at the RD57 project at Rosyth; that was everyone's assumption. It would cost the taxpayer more than £450 million. But two years ago, the management at Devonport, headed by Mike Leece and Peter Whitehouse, realised that all the skills, equipment and facilities necessary to maintain the Trident submarine were found at Devonport. The dockyard could have a part of that work.
The dockyard put forward a scheme to the Ministry of Defence. It was painstakingly put together. It drew on the experience that Devonport had of refitting nuclear submarines. It drew on the skills of our work force in Plymouth. It was substantially cheaper than the RD57 project. It would save the taxpayer more than £150 million. The bid had to be taken seriously. No responsible Government could have turned their back on that bid.
Suddenly, there were two possible options for maintaining the Trident submarine. Rosyth rightly realised that the RD57 project was too expensive. It bravely made a bid based on upgrading its existing clocks. The Government had to decide between the bids. The Devonport bid put its capital cost at £236 million. Its operational costs were lower than those at Rosyth. It met the safety requirements. The two bids had to be taken seriously.
Collocated with the dockyard at Plymouth is the Navy base. That is another reason why the dockyard is there. As it was so important to maintain the dockyard in Plymouth, the whole community swung behind the bid of Devonport Management Ltd., including the local authority under both Conservative and Labour control, the trade unions, the county council, the chamber of commerce and local Members of Parliament. They did so because it was vital to our community.
It is perfectly true that we pressed the case. During the election campaign in April last year, the bid was the biggest issue that faced Plymouth, probably Devon and Cornwall and perhaps even the whole of the west country. In the election campaign, we saw the grotesque spectacle of the Labour defence spokesman coming to Plymouth and shouting for Devonport, then going up to Scotland and saying that the work must go to Rosyth.

Mr. O'Neill: That is not true.

Mr. Streeter: That is what the west country had to put up with all these years. I am bound to say—

Mr. O'Neill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I am the person to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring, I must tell him that I did not do that—it is just not true. If he looks at the press clippings from both parts of the United Kingdom, he will see that what he said may be in a Tory party brief, but it is not the truth.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman might have sought to intervene—which he seems to have done.

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful for that intervention/point of order. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the press clippings again and at the leaflets distributed by the Labour party at the general election because he will see a different story. He is directly quoted as rooting for Devonport.
For all the reasons that I have outlined, the community of Plymouth got behind the Devonport bid. We were fighting for our lives, for our city and for jobs for our young people. That was why there has been such a fierce debate and such a fiercely fought competition. I pay tribute to the management and work force of Devonport Management Ltd. which made the running in the contract race, and handled itself skilfully. I pay tribute to its tenacity and professionalism. Those are the reasons why its bid was successful.
Why did we win the contract race? It was simply because our bid complied with the specifications of the Ministry of Defence. It was £64 million cheaper than the Rosyth bid in terms of capital and operational costs. What choice would any responsible Government have in those circumstances? The Navy was happy with the Devonport hid and clearly there was little choice for the Government but to accept it.
The competition process has thrown up one successful result: the taxpayer has gained enormously—to the tune of about £250 million. No responsible Government could turn their back on that. No wonder the Conservative party espouses competitive tendering and market testing as an essential part of government—it is the best thing for the taxpayer. The Devonport bid was cheaper than the Rosyth bid, which is why we won and why the west country is tonight grateful to DML for the way in which it conducted itself.
It is also recognised in the west country, however, that only a Conservative Government would have delivered Trident to the west country. That fact is now abundantly clear—the Labour Front-Bench team has made its position clear. Despite the burdens on the taxpayer and the costs, the Labour Front-Bench team would have buried their heads in the sand and given the contract to Rosyth. There is news in that, but what has shocked the people of the west country is the revelation that the Liberals' official party policy—despite what the party was saying locally—was to give the contract to Rosyth. That has devastated people in the west country, who will not forget or forgive that.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: When did the hon. Gentleman first learn that that was our policy?

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention because I have in my hand a statement that he made yesterday when he spoke on Radio 4. It was a shock because we in the west country have been bamboozled by the Liberals, who gave us the impression that they were fighting for Devonport as that was their official party policy. However, that is not so; yesterday, the hon. and learned Gentleman said:
Well, I have made a judgment in my capacity as the Defence Spokesman for my Party…I believe that the two yard solution which the Secretary of State has argued for can best be exemplified by sending the nuclear submarines to Rosyth and the surface ones to Devonport.
That statement has gone down like a lead balloon in the west country. The Liberal Democrats tried to pull the wool over our eyes; they have been exposed for what they are—a party that has turned its back on the west country.
The outcome of the important contract race is that Devonport has won because it offered the best value for money for the taxpayer. We have seen that competitive tendering works—it has saved money for the Navy and the taxpayer. The Government have clearly committed themselves to a two-yard solution. They have proved that that is their intention; they have given assurances and provided the people of Rosyth with a package of compensation of work and hope which the people of the west country support.

Mr. Alex Salmond: If nothing else, the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has confirmed that today's decision was not a financial or strategic but a political decision. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton chose to interpret it in that light.
If hon. Members had any doubt about the winners and losers of today's events, they needed only to look at the south coast Members of Parliament who were celebrating opposite the House of Commons earlier today. No doubt the Secretary of State for Scotland would use the phrase that he used in a Scottish newspaper this morning—a phrase that I would never use—and describe them as the "bloody English". I think that they are merely politicians celebrating a victory. The Secretary of State for Scotland should be present now to explain why he was defeated.
We are trying to find a guaranteed future for Rosyth. Various parties will have different ways of finding that future. The question before us today is whether the announcement from the Secretary of State for Defence will provide that guaranteed future. The information that we have received and our experience of Government guarantees and commitments show that the answer must be no.
As has been said, there is a difference between allocated work and guaranteed work, although—given the loose words that he used on television earlier this evening—that difference seems to have escaped the Secretary of State for Scotland. Even on the basis of the allocated work, I suggest that the reduction in personnel at Rosyth will be much greater than the estimate of 450 that we have been given.
The Secretary of State for Defence gave us some new figures this evening. He said that, over and above the 18 major surface ships that he had mentioned this afternoon, a further 49 surface ships would be allocated. A quick calculation suggests that 67 surface ships in the next 13

years will be allocated, which is fewer than the 79 that the Secretary of State for Defence mentioned in his statement this afternoon.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: rose——

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman sits down, I might be generous to him later in my speech, which is more than can be said for the Secretary of State for Defence who refused to give way to me earlier.
As I was saying—if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) would care to listen—those figures would result in a total of 67 surface ships in the next 13 years being allocated—fewer than the 79 which have been turned around by Rosyth in the past 10 years. In addition, there are the five nuclear refits that Rosyth completed in the same period, using the huge dedicated work force that it has for this purpose. That seems to show that the estimated 450 job losses on such a programme—even if we accept that the allocated programme will go to Rosyth—is a serious underestimate.
What is the competitive position that Rosyth will face? As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said—he has most successfully made the point—Devonport will still be in a position to compete for the unallocated surface work. Due to the overheads which Devonport will be able to carry on a range of activities, the price that it submits will inevitably be lower than that of any other shipyard or dockyard. The chances are that its tender price will become the prevailing price which Rosyth will be expected to meet for the allocated work. That will place Rosyth at an unfair disadvantage to Devonport in a competitive market.

Dr. Godman: The fate that the hon. Gentleman is spelling out for Rosyth is precisely the fate suffered by the employees of Scott Lithgow. At the time the then Mr. George Younger made all sorts of promises, but there was no way in which Scott Lithgow could compete with Vickers of Barrow-in-Furness in terms of submarine building. That sent Scott Lithgow down the Clyde.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made. In an interview in The Herald yesteday, Mr. Alan Smith said:
If they get the submarines, they will be strong enough to do us down … Yes, they will be in a position to knock us for six, fighting vigorously to get the surface ships as well. It would spell the beginning of the end for Rosyth.
Rosyth will face unfair competition over the unallocated sections of the surface work, which will affect the prevailing price even of the allocated section. It comes ill from the Secretary of State for Defence to claim the benefits of competition for the nuclear refit when his announcement this afternoon ends such competition.
What guarantees were given by Lord Younger in his statement in The Times earlier this month? Once again the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East put his finger on it when he pointed out that the Secretary of State for Defence was reduced to partially quoting the man who was his predecessor as the Secretary of State for Scotland. The context of the letter makes quite clear the extent of the breach of faith that Lord Younger was fearful of—he campaigned and sold nuclear bases to Scotland on the argument that the refitting work would come to Rosyth. Clearly that is a substantial breach of faith.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene later in my speech if he has a little patience.
However the extent of bad faith went further than that. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) quoted what Lord Younger said in the "Scottish Lobby" programme broadcast on 19 June and pointed out that Lord Younger had already anticipated exactly the solution that was announced and defended by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Defence this afternoon, and said that it would be inadequate and would not guarantee the future of Rosyth.
Later in the same interview in "Scottish Lobby", he was asked whether it was just a personal breach of faith, a personal commitment that he made in the mid 1980s when he had responsibility, or whether he interpreted it as a breach of faith by the entire Government. The interviewer said:
So it seemed then a terrible breach of faith—I mean you yourself have talked about the concern that you personally would feel about this. But it would be a terrible breach of faith by the government wouldn't it?
The answer from Lord Younger was:
Well, I think it would. If you take it we were persuaded in Scotland that there were the jobs and we therefore agreed to go along with all the other bits of it. I think to let it be fixed up in Scotland and then take away some of the jobs is something you should only do with a very very overwhelmingly good reason".
Perhaps Lord Younger found his overwhelmingly good reason when the Secretary of State for Scotland phoned him up earlier today and said, "I am in the most incredible political fix. I cannot persuade my Cabinet colleagues, but can I rely on you to keep quiet and pretend that the breach of faith is not as extensive as you have indicated in your letter in The Times?"
It was a breach of faith by the Government and not just by Lord Younger. That is why it is incredible that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be heralding his announcement as an extraordinary victory for his lobbying power in Parliament. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene now because I am about to deal with the point that I am sure he is going to make.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is talking about guarantees and allocations. What guarantees could he give the people of Rosyth on the basis of the first paragraph of his own party's defence manifesto which said:
The SNP is committed to a non-nuclear Scotland. An independent Scotland will immediately withdraw from the UK's Trident programme and will order nuclear weapons and installations off our soil. There will be no place for scandalously expensive, impractical and ultimately useless nuclear weapons."?
What guarantee could the hon. Gentleman give the people of Rosyth when that was his manifesto?

Mr. Salmond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that free publicity for the Scottish National party manifesto. was coming to exactly that point.
Rosyth in an independent Scottish context would be a non-nuclear first-line base. An independent Scotland—[Interruption.] Believe it or not, Denmark, which is a similar maritime country to Scotland, has naval bases and dockyards. The difference between Rosyth in a British context and a Scottish context is that in a Scottish context it now is the No. 1 nuclear base and dockyard on the east

coast of Scotland whereas in a British context it is a second division, B-league base and is now subject to a very uncertain future indeed.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman cares to examine the budget proposals that we put forward for an independent Scotland, he will see that, because of the distortion and concentration of defence expenditure in the south and south-west of England, it is possible to reduce the overall defence budget in Scotland and still maintain around the current expenditure on procurement because Scotland lost out so badly in the last United Kingdom defence budget.
Turning to the point I was about to make on the general election campaign, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the then Secretary of State for Defence, was arguing with me in a radio interview. "Where would Rosyth be," said the right hon. Gentleman, "if it were not able to bid and compete for nuclear refitting work in an independent have a guaranteed future in an independent Scotland.
What there surely should be agreement on tonight is that there is no guaranteed future for Rosyth in a British context. So next time we hear Conservative and Labour politicians arguing in general election campaigns in Scotland that the only way to secure the future of defence bases in Scotland is to maintain the union it will get the horse laugh from the Scottish people that it richly deserves after this afternoon's betrayal.
In conclusion, the Secretary of State for Defence said earlier today that he will find——

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has heard me say that I am not giving way, so perhaps he will resume his seat.
The Secretary of State for Defence told us earlier this afternoon that there would be an amicable solution to the question of whether the rotting nuclear hulks would be left at Rosyth or exported down south. The only amicable solution to that question is that these nuclear hulks should be removed immediately because no one in Scotland will accept a future for Rosyth as an elephants graveyard for nuclear submarines.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me a few moments in this valuable Adjournment debate. I claim a right to two or three minutes on behalf of my constituents who provide perhaps 15 per cent. of the work force of Devonport dockyard. May I say how wonderful it is that we have won the contract on merit. The quality of the work in Devon is superb and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) who represents the constituency next to mine has pointed out, there is no question but that the best dockyard has won the contract.
Of course it must be very difficult to have lost and perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), in whose constituency the Devonport dockyard resides, is not in the Chamber and


has not spoken. The reason is that he is in direct conflict with his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench. Winning must be a somewhat bitter pill for him, just as the debate tonight is a bitter pill for Liberal Democrat Members, who have said such different things in the west country from the public pronouncements of their defence spokesman tonight and yesterday.
I should like to thank the Secretary of State for Defence on behalf of my constituents in Bere Alston, Bere Ferrows, Were Quay and the Yelverton area, who provide such a high proportion of the work force in the Devonport dockyard. I should also like to thank the Secretary of State for Defence on behalf of those at the Appledore shipyard in the northern part of my constituency who also assist in the repair work at the dockyard, and to whom other work is sometimes given.
We have a fine sea-going and shipbuilding tradition, as hon. Members with whom we have been linked in Scotland know, and I want to make it clear it gives me no pleasure or happiness to learn of the unhappiness at Rosyth. It is sad when one cannot win everything. But it is not a case of winner takes all, because the Secretary of State for Defence has managed such an equitable division with only 450 job losses in Rosyth. That is remarkable. Many months ago, a trades union leader from Rosyth told me that he was expecting at least 2,000 or 3,000 over the next four years. Now a Conservative Secretary of State has managed to prove him wrong, and I for one rejoice in that.
This was a wonderful decision by the Secretary of State. On behalf of my constituents who work in Devonport I want to pay tribute to every west country Conservative colleague, regardless of whether he or she had a direct involvement. They have all banded together and fought for this superb decision.
I extend my good wishes to Rosyth; I am delighted that only 450 job losses are forecast and that a full programme of work lies ahead for that magnificent yard.

Mr. John McFall: The guilty man is the Secretary of State for Scotland. Throughout the 1980s, we had nothing but promises, promises, promises, but where have those promises led us? Between 1980 and 1993, promises were freely made every year. I remind the House of the promise in 1984 given by the Minister responsible for the armed services, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley):
I should like to take this opportunity to announce that we have now settled where the refitting of the Trident submarines will be carried out; it will be at Rosyth."—[Official Report, 29 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 1122.]
The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), said, as reported in The Herald on 10 December 1985:
Commercial management of the Royal Dockyards offers the prospect of attracting even more work than there is at present, and it is the Government's intention to push ahead with this advancement. There is a brighter future for Rosyth.
The right hon. Gentleman should tell that to the workers of Rosyth and of Scotland on this day.
Rosyth has been betrayed—a fact of which I was clearly reminded when I received a phone call on Monday morning from the press to tell me that there had been a full nuclear alert on Sunday at the Faslane nuclear base. We

were reminded of the consequences of having such bases in our constituencies. There is a price to be paid—a certain tension in the air. We have to live with those consequences.
At my surgery a couple of weeks ago, someone who works at the base came to tell me that he had leukaemia. I do not for a minute say that the base is responsible, but health and safety issues in a nuclear environment have to be faced by those of us who represent areas such as Faslane. If we bear such responsibilities, surely we should also have the benefits of the maintenance of Trident. This simple argument has been put to me and my fellow Members time and again.
As for the strategic considerations, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) pointed out. Rosyth is but a gentle two-hour drive from Faslane. On strategic grounds alone, therefore, the nuclear submarine refitting should be located at Rosyth.
I keep in regular touch with the workers at the base. Many of them tell me that they might prefer not to be working there, but it is at least a job: it keeps body and soul together. It keeps families intact. This decision, therefore, is taking effect against a background of the employment black spots in our constituencies. Rosyth will become an employment black hole after this.
In his short and eloquent speech, the Secretary of State talked about Rosyth but did not mention jobs or training. The defence industries are being run down, and we will lose jobs. In Coulport, a total of 800 jobs have been and are being lost. This is a continuing problem, yet the Secretary of State made no mention of alternative employment possibilities or of arms conversion possibly providing other jobs. The Government have simply failed to tackle that—a severe omission.
Rosyth trains half the engineering apprentices in Scotland; in other words, it provides the skills base for Scotland. People gain a fine training and in Faslane, whose apprentices I also know. This whole skills base is to be lost as a result of the loss of Rosyth, and the Government have nothing to offer us——

Mr. George Kynoch: rose——

Mr. McFall: The Government have trumpeted the idea that competition prevails, although there is surely also a strategic dimension. In a letter to The Times on 11 June, the Earl of Perth said that, by giving the work to Devonport, we are putting all our eggs in one basket, and that makes no strategic sense. Competition alone will not serve the primary strategic interest.
As for the Navy's own preference, I believe that a number of dirty tricks have been played. It is claimed that the Navy prefers Devonport, but I spoke to senior naval ratings only a few weeks ago in my constituency. They described the differences, as they saw them, between the south of England, with its urban chaos, and Scotland, with its free open spaces and cleaner environment—much better to live in, in short. Hon. Members should not believe the stories about the Navy wanting Devonport. Dirty tricks have been played in this campaign.
One of the dirtiest tricks was the sleazy remark of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who sidled up to the Dispatch Box earlier. He has been mute on this issue all day, but he is the one who should resign. He claims that, in a covert conversation that cannot be corroborated, Lord Younger agreed with the Government's decision today. Let us remind ourselves what Lord Younger said:


One of the most powerful arguments deployed is that there would be many jobs for Scotland associated with operating and maintaining submarines.
Translated, that means that the submarines are operated from Faslane; the maintenance of the submarines is undertaken at Rosyth. Lord Younger cannot go back on those words. They hang like a millstone around his neck and around the neck of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The message of today's exercise is: never trust a Tory. A Tory promise is a broken promise, and it causes heartbreak for thousands of people in Scotland. That is the message of this despicable exercise. The Secretary of State for Scotland should be ashamed of himself for his lack of spunk. He should remove himself immediately from the Cabinet.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Coming as I do from the west country, I too welcome today's decision. It was the longest, most sustained campaign in which I have ever been involved. In it, we put to the Government the position that seemed to me from the outset militarily and economically right and in every way unanswerable.
But one can take nothing for granted in this life, and it was clear that political considerations might have impinged on the Government to make them, as some thought, turn their face away from what they would otherwise have done. I never thought for a moment that that was likely. I am sure that the Government have been greatly aided in coming to their conclusions by the sustained support of Conservative Members who had carefully considered the problem, and who believed that this option was military and economically right, and right for the west country.
The last thing that I would want to do on such an occasion is meddle in other people's grief. If I represented Rosyth, I too would be disappointed. I assure Opposition Members that I will not meddle in their grief—except perhaps to mention that there is something faintly ludicrous about a party which has for so long espoused the unilateralist cause, a party in which so many members once trumpeted their membership of CND, now queuing up to call for the maintenance of nuclear weapons in nuclear-free zones. It is bizarre.
However, I will give them this much credit: at least they were prepared to engage in bare-faced, brazen cheek with a straight face. Coming as I do from the west country, I know beyond doubt that no one in the west country ever thought that a Labour Government would safeguard their position in regard to defence; no one looks to a Labour Government to support them in that regard.
If people do not look to a Labour Government for the defence of their country, they perhaps believe—in a misguided way—that the Liberal Democrats can be entrusted with it, and that they are sound when it comes to the maintenance of Trident. In assessing that view—even before the "Today" programme yesterday, with which I shall deal shortly—they might just have wanted to consider the record. Liberal Democrat Members told people in the west country that they too were doing all they could to ensure that the Tories did not backslide on their commitments to Devonport.
As long ago as 1983, the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) appeared on a CND platform in Hyde Park. The right hon. Member for Yeovil said:

Let us be clear…this country does not need Cruise, and NATO does not need Cruise.
Just a year later, he featured in a CND launch in the Morning Star, along with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who was then the parliamentary Labour CND chairman, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). The occasion was a CND campaign against Trident, which the three declared to be an £11 billion white elephant.
Just to make his position clear, the right hon. Member for Yeovil described Trident as
a monstrous folly which we should divest ourselves of as soon as possible".
In 1988, when asked in the context of his own election campaign for the leadership of his party, "What about Trident then, Paddy?", he replied:
No! For Polaris at the last election, read Trident at the next".
Let me bring the House right up to date—although there is never anything really up to date about the Liberal Democrats. Anyone who has ever tried to canvass in a road after a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate has gone up it knows that they do not just change their policies from year to year, from election to election or from constituency to constituency; they change their policies from house to house. It is a case of "What do you want to hear? What would you like us to promise? We will promise it to you."
Only two years ago—for the Liberal Democrats, that is a very long time—they drew up a policy document entitled "Reshaping Europe". It was produced in 1990. It stated:
Last year, we called for 'a gradual reduction in spending as a proportion of national wealth'. In the changed circumstances of today we propose a bolder objective. We call for a reduction of at least 50 per cent. in real terms in UK defence expenditure, phased in over the remainder of she century'''.
It went on to explain those proposals, just in case people could not understand. It stated that its proposals envisaged
'reductions in the size of the army from 160,000 to 73,000 … and in the Royal Navy of around half of its present size (to 24 frigates, 13 attack submarines and 2 aircraft carriers)'"—
and just for good measure,
the RAF being cut 'by 12 from the present 31 combat aircraft squadrons'.
The idea that a party that could propose such a programme and policy would be capable of throwing its weight meaningfully behind a proper option for Trident is ludicrous; but, understandably, people can be beguiled. In recent weeks, in the west country, the Liberal Democrats made the same point time and again, particularly in the council elections. It would be almost incredible, were it not true. They said that the Tories were a bit soft on Trident, and were not putting their back into the campaign. They were saying that that last push to give the Trident contract to Devonport needed Liberal Democrat support—as the rope supports the hanging man, I suppose.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)—who came to a press conference last week and told the people assembled there that tha Trident contract would definitely go to Rosyth—did what they were entitled to do, and exercised their right to campaign on behalf of constituency interests?
If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the official position of the Liberal Democrats, let me tell him that I have checked my diary and discovered that, on 25 February. I went to a meeting in the office of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who will wind up the debate. I was one of a number of Members of Parliament campaigning for the two-yard option—that is, for nuclear submarines at Rosyth and surface work at Devonport. All the hon. Gentleman had to do was ask his hon. Friend about our policy, if he was in any doubt.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. and learned Gentleman cuts such a ludicrous figure that I would like to think that, when I am campaigning in Teignbridge at the next election, he will speak on my platform. All I fear is his support. I do not know what his social diary may include; I do not know at what times he meets my hon. Friends. I am talking about the lies, lies, lies and more lies told by the Liberal Democrats during the county council elections, about how we would be soft on Trident and they would make the final push.

Mr. Harris: Was the information given by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) conveyed by the Liberal Democrats in Cornwall and Devon during the county council elections? I did not observe any such information; I suspect that they sang a very different tune.

Mr. Nicholls: The tune is the one that I have mentioned. Yesterday, the cat was finally let out of the bag. Under some stiff questioning on the "Today" programme, the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke; perhaps he was so cynical by then that he did not need stiff questioning to produce the information, but I shall do him the credit of believing that it was stiff questioning.
He said:
Well, I have made a judgement in my capacity as the Defence spokesman for my Party … I believe that the two yard solution … can best be exemplified by sending the nuclear submarines to Rosyth and the surface ones to Devonport".
In an earlier intervention, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was just arguing a constituency point.

Mr. Campbell: No.

Mr. Nicholls: It is not just that the impression has changed from one house to another; it has changed in the course of a debate. I could understand if the hon. and learned Gentleman was campaigning because Rosyth was in his own electoral yard, but he was saying that it was the official policy of his party to behave in this way. He was throwing the weight of his party behind an option that would have deprived the west country of what it needs.
The one thing that comes out of this business is that the Liberal Democrats have betrayed the people they claimed to champion. In all the celebrations tonight, the one thing that the Navy in Plymouth and the west country needs to know is that, when it came down to it, it was betrayed by the one party that pretended that it could be relied upon. I use this term in an entirely parliamentary way: it is utterly contemptible, and the people of the west country swill not forget.

9 pm

Mrs. Irene Adams: I am grateful for a few minutes to speak in the debate tonight; I know how many hon. Members are waiting to get in.
Rosyth is not in or adjacent to my constituency; it is a good few miles from it. However, such is the nature of the work at Rosyth that many jobs throughout Scotland are dependent on it.
Today, when this announcement was made, I asked the Secretary of State if he could tell us how he had come up with the figure of 450 redundancies at Rosyth. It never fails to surprise me how glibly the Government roll a figure of 450 job losses off their tongues. They seem to forget that the families of 450 people have seen their future go down the river tonight. That does not seem to mean a great deal to them.
If, when they were looking at Rosyth, they had given some thought to defence diversification, we might not be concerned about the jobs at Rosyth, but might be looking at putting jobs and training in other places.
My constituency will lose jobs because of the announcement today. I did not get an answer when I asked what the ancillary job loss would be. However, since it is estimated that 18,500 jobs in Scotland are dependent upon Rosyth, and therefore that there are five times as many jobs outside as inside the dockyard, I can only assume that there will be five times as many job losses throughout Scotland as there will be in the dockyard itself. That will mean a job loss of almost 2,500 in Scotland, not 450—and 450 is a very conservative estimate in anybody's book. It is estimated that of those 18,500 jobs there are probably about 1,800 in the vicinity of my constituency.
I have to tell the House once again that, since the Conservatives came to power in 1979, my constituency has lost an unbelievable 89 per cent. of its manufacturing base. I know that that is difficult for the House to believe, and it is a sorry situation. It will certainly not be helped by the announcement that was made today, as Babcock Thorn, the major employer at Rosyth, is also the major employer in my constituency. Therefore, we will undoubtedly be affected once more by the job losses announced today.
The Government made no mention of training when they mentioned the redundancies. Again, Rosyth is the biggest trainer of apprentices in Scotland, and training jobs have gone completely down the river as well.
I recently visited Rolls-Royce in my constituency. It, too, is a major employer, and it has announced 450 job losses in my constituency in the last few weeks. Rolls-Royce tells me that in the last five years it has trained 36 apprentices. The last six will complete their training this year, after which the company has no plans to train any further apprentices. I have to assume that, if 450 jobs are going at Rosyth, there are a good number of apprenticeships going as well.
I can see no hope for my constituejcy in the announcement today for manufacturing jobs. All we have had in their place have been very low-paid service jobs, where people are working for between £1·20 and £2·40 an hour, with no future.
I am not greatly impressed by the promises that the Government have made today, because they have made promises in the past. We heard about Lord Younger's promise to keep Rosyth going for Scotland. In 1979, the same Lord Younger, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, promised, when the first major job losses came


in the west of Scotland at the Talbot car plant at Linwood, in the constituency of Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, that he would see what he could do to make sure that manufacturing stayed in that area.
He promised that, even if we had to make rubber ducks, manufacturing would continue at Linwood. Not even a rubber duck is made at Linwood now. On that vast site, where once 5,000 people were employed, there are a few retail jobs and a few service jobs, but absolutely no manufacturing jobs.
I can only assume that the same would be the case at Rosyth. Once more, we have empty promises, with nothing to back them up. It will be death by strangulation, as it has been in my constituency.
We have not suffered a major job loss in one blow; we have suffered death by a thousand cuts. That is exactly what is going to happen at Rosyth. We have not had the guarantees that we require from the Government. They continually tell us that we will get the job allocations, but I would be most grateful if, in winding up, the Minister will tell us that he guarantees that there will be only 450 job losses at Rosyth.

Dr. Godman: May I point out to my hon. Friend that, at the time of Scott Lithgow being pushed out of submarine building, similar promises were made by the same Ministers—Lord Younger and his then right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). Those promises were utterly worthless. I share my hon. Friend's deep concern about the real number of jobs that will be lost.

Mrs. Adams: The promises have been worthless. They were worthless at Linwood and for the coal industry. They are worthless at Rosyth, too. I should be grateful if the Minister could point to promises that were not worthless.
I ask the Government again about the number of redundancies—450—which I still question. What consultations have the Government had, and what estimates have they made of the ancillary job losses, both in the west of Scotland and throughout Scotland?

Mr. Ian Bruce: I intend to deal specifically with the calumny that has been put about by Opposition Members that in some way the Government have attempted to treat Rosyth unfairly. It is absolutely clear that the Government have bent over backwards to look after Rosyth and the Scottish defence industry.
It is interesting to speculate about what would have happened if the Opposition had become the party of Government at the last general election and if one of their shipyards, as it would have been then, had come to them and said, "We can save £250 million on the refitting of the Trident submarines by using an existing dock rather than building a new one." I am sure that they, as the party of Government, would have checked the figures for both Devonport and Rosyth. If Opposition Members believe that they would have thrown away £64 million of savings by awarding the contract to Rosyth rather than to Devonport, they should say so clearly.
What is the Government's record? At every stage, once Devonport began to bid for the contract, Devonport won against Rosyth. Did the Government immediately say, "Right, we'll go to Devonport and close the door on Rosyth.'? No, they kept going back to Rosyth and saying,

"Look at the figures again." Even when it became clear that Devonport would win the contract, I am absolutely certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends made every effort to ensure that work would go to Rosyth, so as to keep the two-base option that the Opposition talk about. However, they did not listen to what was said about that in today's statement.
I shall give a small example, for the benefit of those who are going on BBC television at Rosyth at the moment regarding their belief that this is a political fix on behalf of Conservative Members with constituencies in the south-west. What we said clearly to the Government was, "You can't ask for fair competition between Devonport and Rosyth and then, when Devonport wins, turn to the Scottish Office and say, 'We understand the difficulties that the Conservative party faces in Scotland, so we'll take the work away from Devonport and give it to Rosyth."'
Hon. Members will recall that time and again before the last general election the Royal Navy told the Government that it felt that it could close one of the Royal Navy bases—not one of the dockyards but one of the bases. The Royal Navy costed that out and found that there were real savings to be made by closing the Royal Navy base at Rosyth. The same costings showed that it was not cost-effective to close Portland. The Government acted to preserve jobs at Rosyth and to maintain the Royal Navy base there.
In order to keep to its long-term costings, the Royal Navy had to do a half closure of Portland, leaving the helicopters where they were, and save money at Portland. My constituents have paid the price of trying to look after the best interests of people in Rosyth. One has to remember that any money that is saved is saved for Scottish taxpayers as well as for English, Welsh and Northern Ireland taxpayers.

Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman know what percentage of United Kingdom defence procurement is spent in Scotland? Does it surprise him to hear that it is well under the population's share?

Mr. Bruce: Considerable defence spending occurs in, for example, Fife and Faslane. The hon. Gentleman likes to chop the United Kingdom into parts and to speak separately of Scotland and England and so on. It is illogical to do that in this context because in parts of the country, such as in the south-west of England, enormous numbers of people are employed in the defence industries.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to spend his holidays in Dorset. He will discover how many Scottish accents can be heard among those living in Weymouth and Portland. Those Scots have come to work there. Indeed, I have a useful name when canvassing. All the people who live there are part and parcel of the nation's defence industries.
The Government's proposals go to the heart of attempting to help Rosyth. The whingeing Jocks who have been sent here—not the Jocks who are back home, who are not the whingers—and who constantly try to put it about that the Government are not looking after the Scottish economy are a complete calumny and should be shown to be that.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: We can do without the sort of Scottish-English nonsense that we just heard from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr.


Bruce). Some of us, for one reason or another, have been involved with the dockyards question for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—who must be elsewhere for this part of the debate—and I were involved in the contractorisation measure, about which we had grave misgivings.
At that time we worked equally with the work force in Devonport and Rosyth. Whenever I went to Devonport I received an extremely warm welcome. Such was the welcome for us and other Labour candidates when we visited the area that Labour won the seat. The same happened in Barrow, where the submarines about which we are talking are still being constructed.
My constituency is not part of Fife, though it adjoins Fife region. I pay tribute to the efforts of that region and all involved there for the work that they have done in the defence of their dockyard. About 350 people in my constituency are employed there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said, innumerable places across the central belt of Scotland will be affected by the Government's decision. It is not a question of 350 or so jobs. Far more than that number of people will be involved. Hi-tech jobs in Fife were created specifically because of the character of the work carried out at the dockyard.
We are told that there will be an allocated programme, but the Secretary of State has been silent on the issue. He is not the most shrinking of violets in normal circumstances. He is not the sort of person—typical of advocates—to use one word when 10 will do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is always prepared to define and refashion what he says. But tonight his silence is deafening.
His coyness is an admission that the Government do not know what the size of the surface fleet will be. I recall in the 1980s hapless civil servants going before the Select Committee on Defence and being asked about the size of the fleet. The conventional wisdom, according to the defence White Papers of the time, was that it was about 50. A controversy was caused when the man replied, "It is probably 42 at the moment." He was called back the following week and the figure was 38. It then came down to 32 and now it is 35 to 40. Perhaps the Minister will give us the revised standard version of that figure. I make that point because we cannot believe any of the forecasts about the size of the fleet.
Since contractorisation, problems have been created for Rosyth and Devonport because of the changes in the profile of the fleet. There have not just been changes in the profile of the surface fleet. Half of this debate would not have been necessary had it not been for the decision of previous members of the Defence team to stop ordering SSN—strategic submarine nuclear—leaving a gap in the nuclear-powered fleet. For the benefit of the neanderthals on the Conservative Benches, there are nuclear submarines that do not carry nuclear weapons. That is what we are talking about.
I would not be unhappy if there had been a justification for the failure to continue ordering and it had been put in an appropriate defence context. We have yet to hear that. We no longer need the SSNs. We no longer need ships sitting in the north Atlantic listening for the Soviet fleet

coming from its northern haunts. Therefore, for us to talk with any degree of certainty about the Rosyth dockyard is very dangerous.
My next point has been alluded to, but it is worth repeating. The part of the work that is not allocated and will be up for competition may involve competition between Rosyth and Devonport. We know that Devonport has extensive wharf areas that could be used for doing bits and pieces of work. In fact, Devonport Management Ltd. is always complaining about its overheads because of the size and scale of the yard. The important point about Rosyth is that it is modern and compact and is using its space effectively. That enables the work force to move about easily when work needs to be done.
My point is not just that DM L will have an advantage. We must realise that the people at VSEL at Barrow, where the submarines are constructed, will not turn their backs on them. At the moment, they are desperate for any work that they can get. That is why they were able to get the work on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Best of luck to them—if there is competitive tendering, to the victor the spoils. We must not kid ourselves that those companies will be standing idly by. We must not forget that Yarrow on the Clyde will be looking for work as well.
The assurances that have been given—if we can dignify the words by that description—are worthless. In the absence of any clear strategic justification for what is happening, everything that the Government say could be subject to change tomorrow.
This is the product of an extensive budgetary exercise. There are now savings. However, we find that there will be a saving of about £12 million on the capital budget out of a possible budget of about £240 million. The difference is 5 per cent. In revenue terms it is about £80 million out of a total budget of £3 billion. It has to be a close-run thing. Other considerations will have to be brought to bear. If there is to be only one centre for the maintenance of nuclear submarines, it seems sensible for it to be near the base from which the vessels operate. If that is the case, it must be Rosyth. There is a synergy for Devonport in these reduced circumstances. It is correct that the surface fleet can operate easily out of the southern waters. It can get into the Atlantic and to virtually any part of the globe that it wants. It is exceedingly difficult to ensure that such flexibility is available in Rosyth.
I argued at one stage that, if the size of the nuclear fleet were big enough, we should have two bases and two sets of facilities. That was perhaps gold plating—an allegation with which people who get close to defence arguments are sometimes tarnished, and I might have been wrong. I certainly would have been prepared to advance effective, strategic arguments and enter into a proper debate. We have yet to achieve that tonight, and I look to the Minister to provide it in his reply.
Will the Minister also state specifically what will be the size of the surface fleet of frigates and destroyers? We are not considering the small ships, which are important to Rosyth, but which could be easily dealt with in a number of other places—Yarrow, as I have mentioned, is just one such place. Plastic-bottom boats could go to Yarrow without any difficulty. Let us secure the big jobs for Rosyth to keep people in employment and guarantee its future.
I remember the last threat to Rosyth, when many of us said that its loss to Scotland would be equivalent to the


loss of Ravenscraig. The numbers and the spin-off technologies are the same, and the assurances were given by the same people. They let us down last time and I do not doubt that they will do so again.

Mrs. Angela Browning: As a Member representing a Devon constituency, I join my colleagues in welcoming today's decision in favour of Devonport. My constituency is almost 50 miles from Devonport, but despite that my constituents work in the yard.
I wish to mention another element which has not been mentioned but which is critical to Devonport and Rosyth—the importance of the dockyards as purchasers within the local economy. For example, in Devon and Cornwall, 600 companies which employ 30,000 people are suppliers to the Devonport dockyard, so today's decision is equally important to the small business community in the south-west, who primarily supply the dockyard. They and the chambers of commerce will greatly welcome today's decision.
In my capacity as a spokesman for the Small Business Bureau and Women into Business, I have been invited many times to speak to the small business community in Scotland. I therefore know that small businesses play an equally important role in the Rosyth area.
We warmly welcomed today's statement about programmes for surface ships at Rosyth. Many Conservative Members, myself included, will pressure Ministers to maintain a credible and modern surface fleet, which we believe to be critical to Britain's capability as an island nation and to our integral role within NATO. I say to Opposition Members that Conservative Members will certainly welcome Ministers' efforts to ensure that Rosyth plays its full part in the commissioning of new ships for the surface fleet.
Opposition Members have used much strong language about today's decision. I shall not challenge each of their speeches, but it is important to challenge some of the comments that have been made. The word "strategic" has been used. Although I am not a military expert, my grandfather and brother were submariners so I am aware of the importance of the statement that my right hon. and learned Friend made this afternoon. My right hon. And learned Friend said:
But, more important, we are not able to accept any proposal which would deprive the Trident submarines of a dedicated emergency docking facility for significant periods; which would mean that the single nuclear refuelling facility was used for all our submarines, so exposing us to unacceptable risks in the event of an incident or other difficulty; and which, indeed, is untested from a technical and safety point of view.
It is extremely important that in peacetime, following an incident at sea involving a submarine, especially a nuclear submarine, we can deal effectively in dock with such problems. Having heard a first-hand account of a fire in a submarine, I am only too well aware of the way in which such incidents affect submariners.
I want to express support for the remarks of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). During the 1980s—before I became a Member of Parliament—I spoke for Peace through NATO. I spent many a long evening in many a village hall up and down the country and abroad debating the case for the NATO alliance. I

argued for the nuclear deterrent on behalf of NATO. I spoke in support of the independent deterrent, which the Conservative party has protected.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Where were the Opposition Members then?

Mrs. Browning: They were sitting on the other side of the platform, arguing the unilateralists' case, along with friends who are perhaps better known nationally for their association with Greenham Common.
It is a bit rich to hear now from Opposition Members a long argument about how defence industry jobs will be lost. We are all concerned about that matter. It is understandable that hon. Members whose constituents are affected should make their representations. However, it must be remembered that, had matters been left to Labour Members or, as has been pointed out, to Liberal Democrat Members, there would be no nuclear submarines in this country. Having a nuclear deterrent was totally against their policies.
We have heard much cant about how this decision was taken by the Government. Why has there been such a sudden change of heart on the part of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members? Why have they suddenly embraced the nuclear deterrent? It is not because they share the conviction of Conservative Members about the stability of our role in NATO; it is for party political, opportunist reasons only.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge quoted the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I have no need to quote the right hon. Gentleman, as indelibly printed on my memory is an occasion in the winter of 1983, just after the right hon. Gentleman became a Member of Parliament. He sat on one side of the platform of a village hall, arguing the unilateralists' case, while my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, (Lady Olga Maitland)—I regret that my hon. Friend is not present in the House—sat with me arguing the NATO case. Having been a Member of Parliament for only a year, I regard it as really quite something to hear such cant and hypocrisy.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I should like to take up the challenge that was thrown down by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) and by several others, including the Secretary of State for Defence, when they asked how we could defend the case for refitting Trident, a nuclear submarine with nuclear weapons, at Rosyth although we did not support Trident. The fact that I shall not do so at this stage—no doubt another opportunity will arise—is based not on any fear but on respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who will undoubtedly deliver a resounding winding-up speech on our behalf.
Let me get to the substance of the question about where the Trident submarine should be maintained. I did not seek out Lords who had moved from ministerial positions to high directorships in banks for the purpose of finding out what people thought about this decision and of assessing the statement of the Secretary of State for Defence; I took the trouble to phone people who work in Rosyth and who live in my constituency of Falkirk, East.
The naval base trade unions have put out a statement in which they
deplore the loss of work taken from Rosyth to try to secure the future employment of some Tory MPs.


Union representatives met the base commander, Captain York, at 3.30 pm today and were amazed to find out that they would have to wait two weeks or more to see in print the logic of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Cabinet. They are shocked at the fact that they cannot debate immediately the facts that brought about the demise of some of the work that they would have had. They spoke to me in particular about the likely impact on the resources base of the naval yard.
The naval base currently supplies Babcock Thorn with support equipment for submarine refits. Rosyth naval yard is a minor war vessel operating base, I am told. There is concern that that may not continue. I do not know whether it was a joke or a straight statement, but the union representatives said that they thought that there was a danger that the Secretary of State would turn it into a mini-minor war vessel operating base. I think that the word "mini" is used in the sense of "much shrunken" rather than as a reference to the old car.
The support service at the naval base must be safeguarded. Today, we heard only about the 450 jobs that are to go immediately because of today's decision, but the existing naval yard rundown plan already means the loss of 1,500 jobs in the next four to five years. We were still told that today's statement implied no other Ministry of Defence job losses. The rundown will leave only 1,400 jobs at the base, and I believe that they should be guaranteed—a word that seems to frighten the Secretary of State for Defence so much at the moment. Will the Minister of State for Defence Procurement guarantee that the 1,400 jobs will still exist at the end of the planned rundown?
Alternatively, will the support equipments that are presently sourced at Rosyth for Babcock Thorn be sourced at Devonport in future? If they are to be sourced at Devonport, will further jobs he transferred there from Rosyth? The workers have not been told; perhaps the Secretary of State forgot to mention it.
Mike Gardiner, who lives at Bo'ness in my constituency, is the staff spokesman at Rosyth naval yard. He is also the vice-chair of the Whitley council for the employees. Like Mike and his members, I hold no brief for the anger levelled at the work force or the community of the Devonport area. This is not a nationalist question; it is about Conservative incompetence and lack of feeling for the people who have given their lives to the naval yards in both areas.
The workers and the House know who betrayed the people of Rosyth, and there is no doubt that it is a betrayal. The Secretaries of State for Scotland the right hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) and for Defence the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) perpetrated what is a betrayal, given the promises made by previous Administrations. The Secretaries of State were supported by what I would call the bleating of the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). I have labelled them the "Scottish Tory Members' own job club"—hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil.
I have every confidence that the work force at Rosyth will join the management in fighting for the yard's future. In the 100-day consultation period, I am sure that we shall fight alongside them. Even after the consultation period,

regardless of the outcome, the work force and management will fight on the ground to try to win orders and secure their futures, but with no thanks to the Conservative Government.
I remind the House that we have not yet reached 1994. The Government originally guaranteed the workers at Ravenscraig that the plant would survive at least until then. Scottish voters will remember that betrayal and this betrayal. I suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Defence give Lord Younger a ring to see whether there are any jobs left in the City.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: The House may be wondering why a Member representing a London suburb is intervening in the heavy gunfire between Scotland and the west country. I do so because I had the privilege to serve in the Royal Navy for nine years, between 1961 and 1970. I was primarily a Devonport man but I visited all the nation's ports, including Rosyth.
I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will not take it as a sign of disrespect if I say that I did not find Rosyth an especially attractive place, although we were always well received there after a hard exercise in the North sea. I had many good times there, and we were always pleased to arrive. Our favourite trick was to hold a sweepstake on the ship's bridge to see what time we would go under the Forth bridge; the captain always seemed to win. We were always made welcome at Rosyth, and the ships always got fixed.
The Navy found that Devonport was, by and large, a more agreeable place. It had better weather, for a start, and was more popular among those on the lower deck and in the wardroom. I had the misfortune to be on board HMS Eagle when she ran aground in Plymouth sound in 1969. I was impressed by the ability of Devonport dockyard to dock the ship promptly and undertake repairs.
As users of Devonport's services, we also experienced the frustration of the dockyard's unionisation and its demarcation disputes. The overmanning led to the Labour Government reducing the dockyard's manpower by 4,000 between 1965 and 1969 and announcing a review in 1969 which resulted in a further 5,000 job losses. That puts today's announcement into perspective. I do not envy my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the difficult decision that he has had to make. I consider that, in the changing circumstances, he is not bound by any announcement made in 1984.
The decision is right for two fundamental reasons. The first is the location of Devonport in the western approaches, which gives it a central place in history. It is the port from which Drake set sail against the armada, and it is unthinkable for the Royal Navy to have any other strategic centre. Secondly, the decision is right on commercial grounds. Devonport was chosen because it represents the best value, and savings for the taxpayer, whom I represent. Yet we can still keep Rosyth open with a loss of only 450 jobs.
I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), and I have never in my life heard more hostages being given to fortune. First, he said that the announcement was divisive. If holding, such a competition is divisive, so be it—let us have more divisiveness. The hon. Gentleman implied that


he would not have held a competition, so the savings of £250 million that have been found would not have been realised. The hon. Gentleman said that simply because he opposes competition and the benefits that it brings.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland, as a Scottish Member, was untenable. It would have been a darn sight more untenable if my right hon. Friend, as a Scottish Member, had favoured Rosyth and ignored the relative merits. Finally, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said that the Government were putting political dogma before the security of the nation. Coming as it does from the party that opposed the deployment of cruise missiles at the height of the cold war, that is nothing but cant, humbug and hypocrisy. I urge the House to support the Government.

Dr. John Reid: I must tell the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that we would have considered it untenable if the decision had been made purely on the basis of the nationality or the constituency interest of the Secretary of State, whether he had favoured Scotland or England, Rosyth or Devonport. The decision should have been based on strategic issues. It certainly should not have been based on the criterion used by the hon. Member for Croydon, South, with his naval experience—the fact that the climate in Devon is warmer. On that basis, we should have given the refitting work to the Bahamas. But the hon. Gentleman's argument was typical of the sort of speech that we have heard tonight.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing us this emergency debate. It is the first since 13 April 1988, and the first that you have granted in your illustrious capacity as Speaker. We recognise that you granted the debate not for any parochial or regional reason, nor for any narrow political reason, but because of the importance of the issue.
Lest there be any doubt in anyone's mind, let me make it plain both personally and on behalf of the Labour party that we pay tribute to the workers, management and representatives of both yards. I bear no ill will towards the workers of Devonport, any more than we did towards the workers of Swan Hunter when we had half a day's debate on that subject less than a month ago. We bear no ill will towards any workers fighting against the decline and decay of their manufacturing industries. We blame no group of workers anywhere in Britain for trying to secure their future and that of their families. That is one reason why we argued for a two-yard solution.
However, I bear ill will towards a Government who make what should be a strategic defence decision by turning community against community in this country, when all our communities are suffering the decline and decay of our traditional industries. One of the local Members of Parliament, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), made that decline clear in his speech—and what a commentary that was on the miserable failure of the Government's economic and industrial policies. The Government's attempt to achieve vital strategic defence decisions purely on the basis of the cost-cutting mentality of the bazaar has led to the dereliction of their duty as strategically oriented defence Ministers on behalf of the United Kingdom. The accusation tonight is not of parochialism or nationalism—it is that the Secretary of State for Defence is guilty of

a lack of strategic defence analysis, a misunderstanding of the competitive policy that he said he wishes to foster, months of dithering and delay which have led to distress for all parties in this competitive procedure, and years of deception.
Our position was made clear at least a year before the Government discovered what they now call the two-yard solution. We made it clear that, as long as the Trident system is a vital part of our security posture, it is simply crazy to have only one facility in Great Britain where it can be refitted, repaired and serviced. Therefore, both Rosyth and Devonport should have been kept open to retain the capacity to handle Trident in addition to nuclear-powered submarines and conventional ones. The decision is another example of a Treasury-driven policy.

Mr. Rifkind: rose——

Dr. Reid: I have only 10 minutes, so I will not give way unless the Secretary of State withdraws the wrong but presumably not malicious allegation that he made against me earlier.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept that the hon. Gentleman called for the cancellation of one of the Trident boats, which would have had major implications. The reason why I wanted to intervene is that he said that the Labour party believed that both Rosyth and Devonport should he provided with facilities for the refitting of Trident submarines. Has he worked out what the cost of that would be? Is he suggesting that a Labour Government would find hundreds of millions of pounds to ensure that the second yard had the expensive Trident refitting requirements?

Dr. Reid: The Secretary of State managed to make two mistakes in his intervention. First, I did not call for the cancellation of the fourth Trident. Secondly, I did not say "facilities"—I said "capability". [ Interruption.] He should check that in Hansard. It is an important distinction.
If the Secretary of State wants me to answer the question whether it is sometimes in the interests of the strategic defence of the country to subsidise a project, rather than always taking a decision on the cost-cutting basis of the bazaar, the answer is yes. Indeed, in his relatively short time in the Ministry of Defence he may not have found that the £20 billion that is spent every year is a subsidy because it is direct expenditure from the public purse and by the taxpayer. That is our complaint.
The Secretary of State told us that he gave us guarantees at some stage. What is the guarantee that the same thing will not happen to Rosyth as happened to the guarantees over Ravenscraig? What is the guarantee that the same will not happen to the frigate fleet of about 50, which became about 40 and is now about 30? Indeed, the Secretary of State, who is engrossed in briefing his colleague, did not use the word "guarantee". He is a Queen's Counsel and is praised as one of the brightest minds at the Scottish Bar. Yet he told us that he does not see any difference between "allocation" and "guarantee". If he does not understand the difference in plain English between allocating work and giving a guarantee that the work will eventually end up in a yard, he should not be at the Scottish Bar or in charge of the Ministry of Defence because he will end up giving a guarantee of everything to everyone.
I will not refer to the promises that have been made tonight because other hon. Members have already referred to them. When we talk about those promises, let me make it clear that the Secretary of State cannot distance himself from the statements that have been made and the pledges given by the Government to the Rosyth workers over the past eight years. If those promises and pledges had been given to the workers at Devonport by his predecessors in the name of Her Majesty's Government, we would be taking the Government to task in exactly the same way. It is one long record.
While I am talking about promises and changing of minds, it comes difficult for us to hear the previous Secretary of State for Scotland accusing people in the Chamber of changing their minds on steel, Trident or anything else. He is the man who pledged his undying commitment to Scottish devolution and sold out for 30 pieces of Cabinet silver and his first foot up the greasy pole. None of us will take lectures from the Secretary of State about changing our minds.
The Secretary of State treated us to a bizarre spectacle tonight. He cannot hide behind the Ministry of Defence or the chiefs of staff. He cannot huddle in his bunker in the Ministry of Defence because the man who was sitting in the Scottish Office as Secretary of State for Scotland was the very man who stood before us tonight and broke every one of the pledges made by the former Secretary of State for Defence and other Ministers to people in Rosyth and Scotland. He acquiesced in their statements. Indeed, he revelled in the assurances given to the workers of Rosyth. Today he has led the way in the betrayal of every one of those promises. For that, he will not be forgotten in Scotland.
I finish not with Scotland but with Devonport. Tonight I warn the workers at Devonport in the same way as we warned the workers at Swan Hunter and others warned workers throughout the country, including Ravenscraig. They should not take a simple opportunistic decision based on short-term political criteria from a Tory Government as a guarantee of their future. It will be as shaky in the long run as the promises that have been made tonight to the workers at Rosyth.
Especially in defence policy, the Government have no strategic analysis. They have no commitment to promises given. They have no friends. They have one aim, and it is not the defence of Britain—it is the survival of those who sit on the Government Front Bench. We shall not forget that, and in the long run the workers at Devonport will not forget it either.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Madam Speaker, we welcome your decision to grant the debate tonight. [Interruption.] We welcome it even more now that we have heard the Opposition's case. It is to spend more taxpayers' money, to give away the whole Trident submarine programme according to all the policies that the Labour party has outlined for years, and to produce a piece of complete rubbish as an argument and a case tonight.
We must begin by emphasising that we are debating a truly national issue. The issue is the right location for our

submarine refitting. One would not have thought that we were discussing a national issue from listening to the case that the Opposition deployed tonight.
It is astonishing how conspicuous by their absence have been the Opposition Members who for months have come to my office and to the Chamber arguing for the nuclear refitting facility to be placed at Devonport. For example, where is the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)? Where are the other Liberal Members who campaigned throughout the west country in the county council elections such as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)? On the Labour Benches, where are such characters as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)? It seems that they have all been sent home for supper. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is herel The hon. Member for Devonport is conspicuous by his silence.
Tonight we have been treated to a parochial Scottish wake which was not justified. The lugubrious pessimism, breast beating and lamentations have not proved justified. The Opposition have not given credit to my right hon. and learned Friend for battling for and winning a 12-year allocated programme for surface ship refits for Rosyth. It will result in 18 major warships and 49 minor war vessels being refitted at Rosyth, including, we hope, the Ark Royal and the carriers, which will be available to Rosyth for the allocated programme.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Aitken: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as he has not participated in the debate.
What we have heard from the Opposition is the stunning argument that——

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is in retreat—earlier, at least we were given "allocate", although we did not get "guarantee". Now all that we are receiving is hope. Let us have a guarantee.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman must not play silly semantic games. I am coming to the bizarre proposition about guarantees and allocations. I shall now relate my remarks to the hon. Gentleman's speech, as he opened the debate. We heard sound, fury and synthetic indignation signifying nothing. Leaving to one side—in the immortal phrase of the Leader of the Opposition—the fact that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was one of the principal signatories of the 1987 early-day motion urging the Government to cancel Trident in the light of the changing international climate, leaving aside the fact that only three days ago he moved an amendment in the defence debate in the House to negotiate away our Trident submarines as part of disarmament negotiations, and leaving aside the fact that only two days ago he was calling for a ten-year allocated programme for Rosyth, the hon. Gentleman has given no credit to the fact that the Government have given it a 12-year allocated programme.
I shall now turn to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who speaks for one part of the Liberal party—the part that was not campaigning in the west country at the county council elections. He said, with an old-fashioned Gladstonian air, as if God had put an ace up his sleeve, that what Lord


Younger had said was a crucial factor in the debate. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was well answered by two salvoes from the Conservative Benches.
One salvo came from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who had spoken to Lord Younger earlier in the day and had received the clear impression that he was well satisfied by the fact that a 12-year allocated programme has gone to Rosyth. The second salvo came from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallic) who made it clear that times had changed since then. That is true—times have changed with the ending of the cold war, the collapse of the Berlin wall and the dissolving of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. Naturally, we now require fewer nuclear submarines.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister knows that Lord Younger wrote his letter to The Times less than a fortnight ago. Is the Minister saying that Lord Younger's position, as represented by the Secretary of State for Scotland, entirely contradicts what he wrote in The Times?

Mr. Aitken: We shall see what Lord Younger has to say. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was correct.
I shall now turn to the great semantic argument on "contractual", "allocated" and "guaranteed"—the conjuring trick that the Opposition have tried to perpetrate tonight. I shall steer them through the semantic fog. I shall first explain the contractual relationship that we expect to establish with I)ML in Devonport. We intend to place a contract at Devonport for the construction of the upgraded nuclear facilities. The word "contract" applies to that construction programme, not to individual refits in that instance.
We shall handle refits in the allocated programme at both dockyards by inviting a single tender for each refit against a Ministry of Defence specification. On the basis of that tender, we shall negotiate a fixed and fair price. That applies both to the surface ship refits at Rosyth and the nuclear refits at Devonport. The allocated programme means that no other yard is invited to tender. It is wrong for the Opposition to cast doubt on the genuineness of our proposal to allocate work to Rosyth. As my right hon. Friend said, we have many years' experience of running allocated programmes and an "allocation" means just that—work is allocated in advance to a dockyard and is not available to be done elsewhere.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Aitken: No, I shall not.
Of course we have to ensure that the system is not abused and that we do not give the dockyard a blank cheque. That is what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for, but we have some concern for value for the taxpayers' money.

Dr. Reid: We are not talking about the price; we are talking about the numbers. The reality is that the core group has been cut over the past decade. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that? It is an entirely different matter from the price.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my right hon. Friend's statement. He said that 18 major war vessels and 49 minor war vessels will be in the programme.
In the past, Rosyth has always been satisfied with its allocated programme. We believe that it will he even more satisfied with its larger allocated programme over the next 12 years.
I now turn to some of the other speeches. I owe it to the House to pick up the speech of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the leader of the Scottish National party. I have never heard a more hypocritical performance. He was arguing for the refit facility to go to Rosyth, but what does the Scottish National party manifesto say? It says:
The SNP is committed to a non-nuclear Scotland. An independent Scotland will immediately withdraw from the United Kingdom's Trident Programme and will order nuclear weapons and installations off our soil.".

Mr. Welsh: Has the Minister secretly joined CND? He has near enough created a nuclear-free Fife by this decision. He is taking more nuclear weapons from Scotland than Labour ever did. He has taken the money down to England and left Scotland with the unemployment.

Mr. Aitken: If that was supposed to be a clarification of the Scottish National party policy, the hon. Gentleman is welcome to it.
One or two serious points were made in the debate. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) asked about the operational reasons for keeping refitting at Rosyth because of its proximity to the Clyde submarine base. Of course we considered this, but the operational considerations had to be balanced by the fact that some £64 million of taxpayers' money could be saved by the Devonport decision, and that was the reason which tipped the balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) savaged the Liberal party in his admirable speech and made it clear that time and again the Liberals have said one thing in one part of the country and something else in another.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) gave the Government considerable credit for striving to help Rosyth. The Government have made great strides in trying to soften the blow of not winning the Trident refitting contract—a 12-year refitting programme keeping redundancies down to 450.

Mr. Connarty: I am willing to rescue the Minister who is obviously sinking fast. Will he consider the question that was asked through me by the convener of the naval yard staff union? What guarantees are given for the 1,400 jobs and the supply of equipment for some of the refits, even if they go to Devonport? They now come from Rosyth to Babcock Thorn.

Mr. Aitken: No Minister can give guarantees from the Dispatch Box. We are making our best estimates on the redundancy figures. What we believe, based on the business plans of the companies themselves, is that we have made a credible estimate and all over the country people who had been predicting many thousands of redundancies have been proved quite wrong by the potential redundancies that are likely to be suffered.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) also asked about the Rosyth naval base. I can tell him that there is no connection between jobs in the royal dockyard and in the naval base at Rosyth.
In conclusion, it was inevitable that the Government's decision on where to locate the refitting of Britain's nuclear submarines would be difficult and tough and inevitably would be unpopular in whichever region did not get the Trident contract. The communities in Rosyth and Devonport had a great deal at stake and the dockyard management companies fought their corners hard in many representations to Ministers and in a great many Adjournment debates in recent months.
The Government's view was that our duty was clear. It was to rise above the local and regional lobbies, and to make a decision that was strategically right in the interests of the defence of the realm, operationally right for the Royal Navy, economically right in the interests of the taxpayer—I remind the House that about £64 million has been saved by the decision—and, above all, right in the national interest. We believe that we have got the decision right, and we commend it to the House.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 281.

Division No. 307]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Allen, Graham
Denham, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dixon. Don


Armstrong, Hilary
Donohoe, Brian H.


Austin-Walker, John
Dowd, Jim


Banks. Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Ms Angela


Barron, Kevin
Enright, Derek


Battle, John
Etherington, Bill


Bayley, Hugh
Fatchett, Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Foulkes, George


Benton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Galbraith, Sam


Berry, Dr. Roger
Galloway, George


Betts, Clive
Gapes, Mike


Blair, Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Boateng, Paul
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boyce, Jimmy
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gould, Bryan


Burden, Richard
Graham, Thomas


Caborn, Richard
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gunnell, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clapham, Michael
Hattersley. Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe. David


Coffey, Ann
Hoey, Kate


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Connarty, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cryer, Bob
Hoyle, Doug


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davidson, Ian
Hutton, John





Illsley, Eric
Pike, Peter L.


Ingram, Adam
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prescott, John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jowell, Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Keen, Alan
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Richardson, Jo


Khabra, Piara S.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rooker, Jeff


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Joan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Salmond, Alex


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Macdonald, Calum
Short, Clare


McFall, John
Simpson, Alan


McLeish, Henry
Skinner, Dennis


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mandelson, Peter
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Stevenson, George


Martlew, Eric
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Thompson. Jack (Wansbeck)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tipping, Paddy


Milburn, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Vaz, Keith


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wallace, James


Morgan, Rhodri
Walley, Joan


Morley, Elliot
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watson, Mike


Mowlam, Marjorie
Welsh, Andrew


Mudie, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wise, Audrey


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Worthington, Tony


O'Hara, Edward



O'Neill, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. John Spellar and


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.


Pickthall, Colin





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Jonathan
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Booth, Hartley


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, Andrew


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkins, Robert
Brandreth, Gyles


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Baldry, Tony
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Bates, Michael
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Peter






Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, Mr
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Hicks, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon David (Gdford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (North


Cran, James
Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Elletson, Harold
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knox, Sir David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn, Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew


Gardiner, Sir George
Maclean, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Madel, David


Gillan, Cheryl
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malone, Gerald


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hague, William
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Milligan, Stephen


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)





Moate, Sir Roger
Spencer, Sir Derek


Monro, Sir Hector
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moss, Malcolm
Spink, Dr Robert


Needham, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Nelson, Anthony
Squire. Robin (Hornchurch)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Steen, Anthony


Nicholls, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Allan


Norris, Steve
Streeter, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sweeney, Walter


Ottaway, Richard
Sykes, John


Page, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend. E)


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thomason, Roy


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Trend, Michael


Richards, Rod
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waller, Gary


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Ward, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wells, Bowen


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Whittingdale, John


Sackville, Tom
Widdecombe, Ann


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolf son, Mark


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Speed, Sir Keith
Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 28th June, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to registration and declaration of Members' financial interests not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister, unless previously disposed of, shall lapse one and a half hours after it has been made; and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Orders of the Day — Waste Incinerator (Gateshead)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Ms Joyce Quin: I am glad to have this opportunity—[Interruption.]—to raise a matter that is of great concern to my constituents—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber leave quietly please?

Ms Quin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I wish to raise a matter that is of great concern to my constituents in Gateshead, East and also to constituents in neighbouring constituencies, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) who is listening to the debate. It concerns the approval that was given recently by the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, who is now the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the building of a clinical waste incinerator in Wardley in my constituency.
I should make it clear from the outset that what has particularly angered my constituents is the fact that the Secretary of State overruled the recommendations of his own inspector, who after a long, detailed and full public inquiry recommended that the proposed incinerator should not be allowed to go ahead. Astonishingly, the Secretary of State for the Environment decided that he knew better than his own inspector and went ahead and recommended approval of the project—a decision that has outraged public opinion not only in Gateshead, East but, I believe, throughout the north-east of England.
While giving the background to the debate, I ought to point out that there are many reasons why public opinion in Gateshead, East is opposed to the building of any incinerator. First, and perhaps most emotively, a previous incinerator in the town was linked with the emergence during the 1980s of a child leukaemia cancer cluster, based on the Gateshead area. There were between 10 and 20 times the number of cases of childhood leukaemia than one would expect in an area with a population the size of Gateshead.
Secondly, there have been other sources of pollution in the Gateshead area, which have led to people being very worried indeed about the possibility of this incinerator being built. Another incinerator gave rise to problems in the past. There were also other sources of pollution, such as the Monkton coke works in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, and the coal crushing plant at Wardley, which is very close to the site of the proposed incinerator.
The people of Gateshead, East were looking forward to a cleaner, brighter future. The last thing they wanted was yet another source of pollution to be planted on their doorstep in the way that is threatened with this incinerator.
There is a third reason why the siting of this incinerator causes such worry to my constituents: that the health of people in Gateshead is already, on average, worse than the health of our citizens nationally. If the Minister has had time to look at the annual report of the Gateshead public health inspector, he will see, for example, that perinatal

mortality rates in Gateshead are significantly higher than the national average. There is also a lower life expectancy for most categories of people in the constituency.
For all those reasons, the latest incinerator proposal has caused widespread public alarm. Indeed, about 16,000 people registered their opposition to this incinerator—a staggering figure.
The Gateshead metropolitan borough council, in tune with its residents, refused planning permission. That is why the matter then went to the Department of the Environment and the Secretary of State. I salute the efforts of the local council, the council leader, Councillor George Gill, and the local councillors who represent the wards most immediately affected by the proposal.
Both I, my parliamentary colleagues, the Member of the European Parliament for the area and the local newspapers, which have played an important role in this affair, have added their weight to the campaign against the incinerator. We find the Secretary of State's decision astonishing on several grounds.
First, it is astonishing that the Secretary of State should have decided in this case to overrule the recommendations of his inspector. I accept that that is unusual rather than unheard of. I have examined information that the Department sent me of cases where the Secretary of State has overruled the planning recommendations of inspectors. I have not found one example of a clinical waste incinerator being dealt with in that way. I am amazed that the Secretary of State should think that he has more technical expertise than his inspector, in having the confidence to overrule his inspector's recommendations in a full and detailed report.
We find the Secretary of State's decision astonishing, because he dismisses our fears about other forms of economic development being deterred by the existence of the incinerator. During the inquiry, the Food and Drink Federation stated:
The siting of a clinical waste incinerator at Follingsby Lane would render the proposed industrial site completely unsuitable for any operation in respect of food and drink, whether processing, distribution or storage, because of the perceived risks to the safety of food.
Anything that undermines confidence from the point of view of economic development is worrying in an area such as Gateshead, and in Tyneside generally. Throughout the 1980s, the northern region had the highest level of unemployment in mainland Britain. Tyneside's situation has been, and continues to be, very bad, particularly bearing in mind recent events at Swan Hunter. All such factors must be taken into account by the Minister.
We also feel that the Secretary of State has not examined the full situation, and has an incomplete grasp of the facts. In his reasons for overruling the inspector, the Secretary of State referred to the regional nature of the clinical waste incinerator. He went on to recognise that I had sent him a letter stating that the Northern regional health authority favoured a number of smaller incinerators rather than one big one. But to my astonishment, he said that, while that might be the case, it did not alter his opinion.
Surely he should have checked on precisely what the situation was in relation to the Northern regional health authority, rather than simply look at a press clipping that I sent to him. He should have conducted a thorough investigation, involving the Northern regional health authority and the region as a whole, in the context of


clinical waste. He would then have been in a better position to reach a full decision. It seems from an examination of that part of the Secretary of State's report that he has not acted reasonably—a point that I hope will be taken on board in any appeal that may be launched against the decision. It is an aspect which worries us greatly.
We accept that incineration is necessary, but the building of what is supposed to be a regional facility should be approved only after a proper regional assessment and a democratic decision has been taken in the region. It is depressing to think that the Secretary of State has ignored the advice of the Select Committee that looked into the whole issue of the disposal of toxic and clinical waste. It said that a proper regional strategy should be worked out for each region before decisions were made.
The only reason why the site in Gateshead has been chosen is that the company that wants to build the facility owns the site. That cannot be a sufficient reason to allow such a proposal to go ahead, and I hope that the Minister will address that point in his reply tonight.
When a similar incinerator was to be built in Alberta in Canada, there was a full democratic process, at the end of which local authorities in parts of the state expressed a desire to house the incinerator. The area chosen was away from high-density population.
The Minister may say that Canada has vast open spaces that we in the north-east of England do not have. Even so, the Alberta example was reinforced by the chair of the European Parliament Environment Committee, who said in evidence that he thought that such a facility should be sited in a wooded area away from high-density human and animal population, and distant from arable land. There are such sites in the north-east, and we believe that the Secretary of State for the Environment and his colleagues have done nothing to try to identify suitable sites that would have the support of the general public.
We are worried that the Secretary of State seems to be glib about the emissions from this incinerating facility. We want Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to adopt the highest standards possible in such an area, but we are worried that, despite supposedly strict controls, emission problems are only discovered afterwards, as with the Bolsover incinerator. The television programme "World in Action" did an exposé on the problems in Bolsover and brought them to the attention of the public. Only after that were tighter controls put in place. Given the history of incineration, I am sure that the Minister will understand how concerned we are in Gateshead about the possibility of dangerous emissions being released into a densely populated area.
We are outraged that the Secretary of State has failed to understand the extent of public hostility to the scheme. The Government say that they are a listening Government, but they have failed to listen to 16,000 people in the Gateshead area, never mind the Members of Parliament, the Member of the European Parliament, the council, residents associations and the local press. They have turned a deaf ear to all who have objected to the scheme. Is it any wonder that people in Gateshead feel bitter as a result?
One of our local newspapers, the Evening Chronicle, said:
The Government ruling seems to turn logic on its head and now we have a Government Minister flying in the face of

a planning inspector's decision in a move which has stunned many people on Tyneside. Would the Environment Secretary have come to the same controversial conclusion if the incinerator plan had been in a Tory area in the south of England?
The Minister will not be surprised that people have reacted in that way.
People are also suspicious of the fact that the Government seem to have more in common with the privatised management of Northumbrian Water than with the people of Gateshead. We believe that the Government should be listening to the people and not to vested interests which might want to build a facility simply because they own the land.
For all those reasons, we feel strongly that the Department of the Environment should look again at this issue and, perhaps at the end of an appeal process, decide that the people have right on their side and that their case should be supported.
I believe that the Department of the Environment should commit itself to undertaking a study of incineration and how it should be dealt with in the north of England. It should then embark on a genuine consultation procedure to carry the people with it, rather than work against them. I implore the Minister to think again about this highly damaging and possibly dangerous proposal and realise that what has happened so far has caused public outrage, not only in Gateshead, East but throughout the north-east of England.

Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate and support my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) on the fight that she has put up for her constituents. This incinerator is on the border of her constituency and my constituency at Wardley. The people in that area have already had to live with the pollution emitted by the Monkton coking works, and now that the coking works has closed, they have emissions from this incinerator thrust upon them.
The previous Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Home Secretary, made this decision. He decided to ignore Gateshead council and South Tyneside council who objected to the planning permission, and he decided to ignore his own inspector and the people in the area. It is disgraceful that, in spite of all the objections, the Government continue to go along with this plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) is here; he has a particular interest because of Gateshead authority and because the proposed incinerator would be close to his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) is also present because of his interest in the region's problems.
I implore the Minister to ask the new Secretary of State for the Environment to reconsider the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East made. We were promised consultation, and an inquiry, and were told that an area examination of incinerators would be conducted before a decision was made. I implore the Minister to take this back to the new Secretary of State and let him reconsider this planning permission.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon)


have raised issues of understandable concern to their constituents and I welcome the opportunity to respond. Some of the hon. Lady's comments were a little wide of the mark, and I shall deal with them in detail.
The debate brings together policy on waste, planning policies and the specific planning decision that is the cause of the hon. Lady's concern. May I deal with our policy on waste? We are a complex society. We produce much waste at home, at work and from industry. Some of the waste that we produce requires specialist treatment, such as waste from hospitals. Overall, our waste management policies seek, wherever possible, to ensure the reduction, re-use or recycling of household and commercial waste.
Large quantities of waste that we produce from our homes, businesses and industry are capable of being reused or recycled. We recognise, though, that, however successful we are in promoting recycling, we will not eradicate waste. What we will do is to reduce the proportion of waste that has to be disposed of. As a society, we shall continue to produce large quantities of waste, for which some form of final disposal, either landfill or incineration, will be the only economic and environmentally friendly option.
The vast bulk of waste for final disposal in this country goes to landfill. Some 150 million tonnes of household, commercial and industrial waste is generated each year, about 85 per cent. of which goes to the 3,000 or so licensed landfill sites throughout the country. Incineration currently accounts for about 4 per cent. of our controlled waste, which is dealt with at about 200 existing licensed incinerators around the country. Incinerators are used to deal with a variety of waste ranging from household waste and sewage sludge to chemical and, as in this instance, clinical waste.
I appreciate that plans to site a waste incineration plant can lead to considerable concerns among local residents. It is wholly understandable that local people should want to be reassured about the impact of such a plant on their neighbourhood. Alas, concerns about incineration plants are often founded more on perceptions of the less efficient operations of the past than on the high technology of the present, with extremely tight regulatory standards firmly endorsed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, an independent body of experts including many leading academics, recently published a report dealing with the incineration of waste and, because of public concerns about some older plants incinerating chemical wastes, it reviewed evidence about the possible health effects of such plants before they were either closed or modified.
The commission concluded that not one of the independent studies found any significant effects on people's health. It concluded that, although there are some uncertainties about some older plants, they are not relevant to the future use of incineration because emission levels in some older plants were far higher than will ever be allowed in the future. All the evidence shows that incinerators make only small contributions to national emissions of most pollutants. Far larger quantities of pollutants are emitted by industry and transport. I appreciate that there are concerns about incineration. The royal commission points out, however, that incineration is particularly suitable for disposal of clinical waste.
Landfill and incineration are both vital components of our nation's waste management strategy. The stringent standards introduced by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will ensure that neither landfill nor incineration should lead to pollution of our environment or harm to our health. Clearly, in a complex society such as ours, contentious and controversial planning proposals are bound to arise from time to time. Planning decisions should not be arbitrary; they should be considered against objective criteria. Development plans provide the basis for such objective consideration.

Mr. John McWilliam: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is desirable to keep the concentrations of chlorofluorocarbons down, as these are extremely dangerous? That is what my hon. Friend was arguing about.

Mr. Baldry: Two years ago, we amended the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to require planning decisions to accord with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. This has been widely welcomed as giving greater guidance and certainty for local authorities and local people. As I shall explain in a moment, they have to come up with a waste development plan.
A plan-led system can work effectively only if the development plans are both comprehensive and up-to-date. We expect most local authorities to have up-to-date local plans by 1996. Gateshead borough council is among those local authorities that we expect to adopt their development plans well before that date.
Provision for waste disposal facilities should also be planned at a strategic level. That is why waste regulation authorities are required, under the Environmental Protection Act, to draw up separate waste disposal plans which consider the need for waste facilities within their areas and the technical aspects of possible methods of treatment and disposal.
In metropolitan areas such as Gateshead, such waste disposal plans will need to be prepared jointly by the joint committee or authority which carries out the waste regulation function on behalf of the districts, so that the needs of the whole area can be considered. In this instance, that is the Tyne and Wear waste regulation authority. These arrangements, taken together, provide the local and strategic contexts within which planning decisions for waste facilities can be taken.
As we learn more about our environment and the balance that needs to be maintained between our activities and the earth's ecosystem, we recognise the need to maintain at the highest level the environmental and health standards to be achieved by our industries. This applies to the waste management industry as much as to any other industry. We are in the process of setting in place an enhanced waste management licensing system under the Environmental Protection Act. This will enable waste regulation authorities more effectively to control waste disposal operations, from the point at which they are no more than a gleam in the eye to the point at which they are no longer considered to have the potential to cause pollution or harm. We are determined that there shall be tough standards for landfill and tough standards for incineration.
Incineration standards are stringent, as are those for landfill. The new system of integrated pollution control


introduced under the Environmental Protection Act covers larger incineration plants of all types. The incineration of specific types of waste and all incinerators rated at I tonne an hour or more are controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP.
Operators of incinerators are required to obtain, in addition to planning permission, an HMIP authorisation which lays down conditions for the operation of the plant, including limits on emissions. The conditions are designed to ensure the use of the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost, to prevent the release of prescribed substances, or, where 100 per cent. prevention is not practicable, to minimise any possible releases and render harmless any substances that might be released. Those incinerators that are much smaller and not controlled by HMIP are almost all controlled by local authorities.
District councils have broadly the same powers as the inspectorate. The waste regulation authorities are responsible for controlling other aspects of the incineration operation.
The usual means of disposing of waste from hospitals and other care premises has for many years been incinerators located within many of our hospitals. Substantial investment is needed to improve the performance of many of these incinerators to meet regulatory standards.
This is leading to further consideration being given to other methods of treatment, including autoclaving and microwaving, which are capable of rendering safe some types of infectious hospital waste. For many types of waste, however, incineration will remain the most appropriate disposal method. The high standards required for incinerators generally apply equally to incinerators burning clinical waste.
The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 removed Crown immunity from all NHS hospitals from 1 April 1991. The operators of NHS incinerators have been given a limited period to determine whether it is cost effective to make the additional improvements needed to bring those incinerators up to acceptable standards.
We have issued statutory guidance to the effect that only in exceptional circumstances can this upgrading of existing plant be completed after 1 October 1995. In practice, many old hospital incinerators will not be upgraded to the full standards. They are being improved simply to meet basic and interim standards and will be closed by October 1995.
With the removal of Crown immunity and the closure of many old hospital incinerators, many hospitals are having to consider the most appropriate means of disposal for the considerable quantities of clinical waste that are produced. All these incinerators will be required to meet the stringent standards currently in force under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which are rigorously enforced by HMIP.
That leads me on to the specific planning application. As the hon. Lady has explained, my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 25 May that he had decided to allow an

appeal by Northumbrian Water plc for a clinical waste incinerator at the former Felling sewage treatment works at Wardley.
The appeal raised a number of complex issues relating to the planning and pollution control systems as a whole, as well as concerns about the environmental impact of the plant. My right hon. and learned Friend's decision was contrary to the recommendations of the inquiry inspector. The case is effectively still sub judice, being within the six-week statutory challenge period. The House will appreciate, therefore, that I am limited in what I am able to say about the specific decision.
The hon. Lady suggested that the clinical incinerator is not wanted by the Northern regional health authority. Let us be clear—if the Northern regional health authority would rather have a number of smaller incinerators instead of a single incinerator for clinical waste, that is a decision for the authority. It does not affect the Secretary of State's view that the appeal proposal is a possible solution to the disposal of clinical waste in the region, and the Secretary of State does not consider that it is premature for him to determine this appeal at the present time.
My right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State explained his reasons for allowing the appeal in his decision letter. That decision letter is, of course, a public document. In that decision, it is made clear that the Secretary of State believes that the pollution control issues associated with this proposal are capable of being satisfactorily addressed through the authorisation process operated by HMIP.
The Secretary of State agreed with the inquiry inspector that, as an industrial development, the incinerator would not conflict with development plan policies for the area. He also considered it in the light of specific criteria in the plan for special industry, and concluded that it satisfied those criteria and was in accordance with the plan.
The permission sets out no fewer than 24 stringent planning conditions that will have to be met. I do not have time now to set them out but I shall ensure that a copy is placed in the Library.
The hon. Lady drew attention to evidence published in research studies in the late 1980s and presented to the inquiry which suggested that Gateshead was the centre of a cluster of childhood leukaemia. I understand this has been linked, anecdotally, to a number of operations—coke works, a municipal incinerator, a hospital incinerator and a power station—all of which have now closed. The evidence presented to the inquiry on leukaemia clusters was fully considered by the inspector and the Secretary of State before it was concluded that an appropriate plant could be built to meet the standards which would be required by HMIP.
Having received outline planning permission—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.